God's anger [Archive] - Martial Arts Planet

potatodemon

23-Aug-2006, 06:52 PM

Sometimes I’ve been rude to people on this forum but now I have something serious to discus.

A god that becomes angry and jealous can not be perfect. Even the Bible states anger as a sin. Even a fool knows that anger and revenge and jealousy never solves any problems and creates very many problems its self.

Righteous anger is a nice phrase but dose not stand up to analysis. Anger by very definition is an irrational emotion especially if one where to know all understand all motivations. It clouds the judgement and is a temporary mood. Surly a perfect being can’t have a mind which changes from one moment to the next and has moods.

So…either your say the representation of an angry God is a metaphor in a parable meant to convey a message to humanity about a God beyond emotions or God is not perfect and is subject to the same faults of jealousy and anger as human beings. If that is so AND God exists than he should not be worshiped because he can’t offer freedom from faults like anger and jealousy.

Decided to post these thoughts after chat with the listmaker so thanks list for giving me some ideas ;)

Taff

23-Aug-2006, 09:59 PM

It does seem interesting to me....

A perfect and omnipotent, omniscient God (as most Christians seem to claim)....so why does he even *need* a personality? And why does he seem to have a personality disorder?

The emotion "anger".... a lot of people like to stand up and say how un-necessary anger is, yet people still get angry, even though we *know* it's bad and doesn't really help anyone too much. But that is because we are imperfect. We are human, we have emotions, we make mistakes, we are not 100% in control of ourselves. Just the way it is.

But the idea that God can get angry, as appears in the Bible, does suggest that he is flawed and that he too is stricken with the human condition.

tekkengod

23-Aug-2006, 10:04 PM

this is pretty simple, for the assumption of argument, he exists, but he clearly isn't perfect. hes clearly an angry ass with an inferiority complex.

xen

23-Aug-2006, 10:19 PM

nah, if you go down the faith line, then its time to stop projecting human qualities.

i think the problem comes from the idea that 'God created man in his image', and ever since then its been turned round and we have this indelible imprint that God is a human with some special powers.

it comes from our vain attempts to understand the incomprehensible, we have to imbue our mental impressions of God with our emotions because it is through our own emotions we understand our actions (emotions provide the drive for reason to follow), so if we imagine a God with our emotions, we can try to come up with plausible reasons for behaviours and events we attribute to his work.

I don't think this was any different when the Bible was written, which is why we have images of a vengeful God etc. Its just a way of rationalising the irrational (IMO)

TigerDude

23-Aug-2006, 10:27 PM

The bible does not state that anger is a sin. And God's jealousy is not the same as a vain human jealousy.

I agree that you are attempting to place human attributes on a God that is beyond understanding.

tekkengod

23-Aug-2006, 10:53 PM

oh great here we go again, let me sum up this thread real quick. "my god doesn't get mad hes perfectm even though he clearly gets angry, and so do i because i am made in his image, he is perfect, even though he kills babies, he loves me even though he has an addiction to vengence and is going to set me on fire in the near future because i called him by the wrong name" this gets so old. if its a concept with a gender and a history, we can assign human qualities to it.

The bible does not state that anger is a sin. And God's jealousy is not the same as a vain human jealousy.

oh and this ^^^ is another example of willful ignorance jealousy is jealousy is the same reguardless of who it comes from. thats pretty simple.

aikiMac

23-Aug-2006, 11:02 PM

... he is perfect, even though he kills babies ...
and is going to set me on fire in the near future because i called him by the wrong name
And kittens, too. Don't forget that he killed kittens over the years.

Is calling him by the wrong name really what sets him off against you? :eek: Wow.

tekkengod

23-Aug-2006, 11:06 PM

And kittens, too. Don't forget that he killed kittens over the years.

Is calling him by the wrong name really what sets him off against you? :eek: Wow.

yeah, that too! actually I'm to be held responsible for the kitten murders, every time something atheistic is posted on MAP he kills one, me and homer are racking up those kitten corpses pretty fast.

yeah, it sets him off alright, one night i called him zeus....he never really got over it.... :cry:

:D

elektro

23-Aug-2006, 11:10 PM

Even the Bible states anger as a sin.

A sin for man, yes, but there seem to be no rules for God.

tekkengod

23-Aug-2006, 11:13 PM

A sin for man, yes, but there seem to be no rules for God.

big surprise :rolleyes:
......

Lily

23-Aug-2006, 11:25 PM

I see it differently. No emotion is a sin, its the actions and words that arise from the emotion that can be interpreted as good or bad depending on perspective. My religious upbringing never involved the use of the word sin so I don't see anger in those terms.

There are deities that are worshipped as aspects of the one god that are incarnations of god in 'justified anger' mode. I'm not saying that god is infallible, unflawed or perfect because I really think our minds are too little to comprehend these concepts outside our small environment.

aikiMac

23-Aug-2006, 11:38 PM

yeah, it sets him off alright, one night i called him zeus....he never really got over it.
Well, what do we do about names changing with the language? Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Italian, French, German, Spanish, English, etc -- names are different when we cross language barriers. Does that really matter? :eek: Dude!

tolchocker

23-Aug-2006, 11:40 PM

me and homer are racking up those kitten corpses pretty fast.

:D

how do you go about it? ive found that once rigor mortis sets in those kittens are a right b*****d to sweep up. and even Barry Scott's magical penny formula cant remove those pesky blood stains

tekkengod

23-Aug-2006, 11:43 PM

xen

23-Aug-2006, 11:50 PM

Well, what do we do about names changing with the language? Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Italian, French, German, Spanish, English, etc -- names are different when we cross language barriers. Does that really matter? :eek: Dude!

hang on, he was the one who tore down the tower of babel and sent them all off with different languages, surely he's got dictionaries :confused: :)

aikiMac

23-Aug-2006, 11:54 PM

hang on, he was the one who tore down the tower of babel and sent them all off with different languages, surely he's got dictionaries :confused: :)
And Pentecost too, if we go with that story! I would sure hope he's got language dictionaries. Wow. It's going to totally suck if I find out that I was supposed to be praying in, well, anything besides English! :eek:

Thelistmaker

24-Aug-2006, 02:34 AM

Surly it’s only Iraqi Christians who go to heaven because they can pray in Aramaic and they have oil, the food of the gods. :D

I know an Iraqi Christian married to a Greek intellectual with a Rabi cousin. Together they can read the entire Bible in its original languages. If anyone knows how to pray to God, it’s them. :cool:

potatodemon

24-Aug-2006, 02:43 AM

Ok I’m going to start being rude again

Come on people, who’ll be the 1st to say I’m going to hell for suggesting such things! :woo: :Angel:

Theres a prize, it involves me, Condoleezza Rice, a box of whipped cream and several deadly sins :cool:

pmitch89

24-Aug-2006, 02:53 AM

Theres a prize, it involves me, Condoleezza Rice, a box of whipped cream and several deadly sins :cool:

Ewww.... :eek:

potatodemon

24-Aug-2006, 03:39 AM

The bible does not state that anger is a sin. And God's jealousy is not the same as a vain human jealousy. Then it is by definition not jealousy, I still say a perfect God can’t have negative qualities or he wouldn’t be perfect, besides someone on another thread was saying sin cant be in the presence of God. I think that rubbish but it illustrates my point.

Sin as a mystical ‘stain’ thing, yeah that’s good analytical thinking :rolleyes:

tekkengod

24-Aug-2006, 04:54 AM

Sin as a mystical ‘stain’ thing, yeah that’s good analytical thinking :rolleyes:

this is classic, sig worthy. :)

how do you go about it? ive found that once rigor mortis sets in those kittens are a right b*****d to sweep up. and even Barry Scott's magical penny formula cant remove those pesky blood stains

Well i call up my good friend bush, who dials god who sends in the trunk monkeys, they're very good with industrial trashbags and large quanteties of bleach. :)

hillbilly79

24-Aug-2006, 01:29 PM

Come on people, who’ll be the 1st to say I’m going to hell for suggesting such things!

No you're going to hell because you haven't put your trust in Jesus.

As xen said you've got it backwards; God doesn't have to conform to your standards. For you to say things like this basically boils down to a lack of respect for God. But when you die or on the final judgement day you will stand before God Almighty and you will see just how puny you and all other people are in comparison to His perfection.

potatodemon

24-Aug-2006, 06:11 PM

No you're going to hell because you haven't put your trust in Jesus.

As xen said you've got it backwards; God doesn't have to conform to your standards. For you to say things like this basically boils down to a lack of respect for God. But when you die or on the final judgement day you will stand before God Almighty and you will see just how puny you and all other people are in comparison to His perfection.
No, you’ve got me wrong, I have great respect for God, but I think the way fundamentalist Christian doctrine presents God and separates him from humanity is truly blasphemous.

Let me explain, I can’t imaging what is described as God as anything other than EVERYTHING, beyond human faults and next to the heart of everyone. I am a Muslim (although not a strict one) with Pantheist interpretations. I aspire to love all and I as do all Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet of God but that over the centuries Fundamentalist Christians have accepted bad interpretations and doctrines to emphasise their own power.

Anyway reasoning out and the nature of things is the only way to expose what is ridicules and what is not, otherwise people really will belief anything if you make it worth their wile emotionally.

Historical example:

Philosopher: surely you must see the flaw in worshiping a god that must be sustained by fresh human blood?

Aztec: Our god doesn’t half to conform to your standards! He ran a skewer though his penis to give us water. If we don’t worshiping him one day the sun won’t rise and all humanity will live in darkness.

Example 2:

Philosopher: surely on the grounds of compassion there is no need for you to have you wives buried with you.

Ancient Chinese emperor: If they are not buried with me we will never find each other in the after life and I can’t protect them from the demons of hell.

Example 3

Philosopher: surely it doesn’t matter what happens to someone’s physical body after they die if the soul is a separate entity.

Ancient Egyptian: you poor naive fool, it would be nice if the world where that way but in reality the soul still draws sustenance from the body though it remains far away so we must preserve our bodies if we are to live on in the after life

I could say I think you disrespect God by not following the Word of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but then what sort of Muslim you I be? - A fundamentalist thats what! :bang: and I'm no fundamentalist

potatodemon

24-Aug-2006, 06:15 PM

this is classic, sig worthy. :)
Do you mean you think my statement is good or bad? There are so many nuts on the internet you never can tell.

Llamageddon

24-Aug-2006, 06:20 PM

tekkengod

24-Aug-2006, 06:29 PM

hillbilly79

24-Aug-2006, 06:45 PM

No, you’ve got me wrong, I have great respect for God, but I think the way fundamentalist Christian doctrine presents God and separates him from humanity is truly blasphemous.

Let me explain, I can’t imaging what is described as God as anything other than EVERYTHING, beyond human faults and next to the heart of everyone. I am a Muslim (although not a strict one) with Pantheist interpretations. I aspire to love all and I as do all Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet of God but that over the centuries Fundamentalist Christians have accepted bad interpretations and doctrines to emphasise their own power.

Anyway reasoning out and the nature of things is the only way to expose what is ridicules and what is not, otherwise people really will belief anything if you make it worth their wile emotionally.

I could say I think you disrespect God by not following the Word of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but then what sort of Muslim you I be? - A fundamentalist thats what! :bang: and I'm no fundamentalist

I did get you wrong. And I have no trouble imagining that what I have said does come accross as nutso to a lot of people. However, I think now that I am unsure why you started this thread. Is unwaivering a bad thing to be? I stick to my beliefs, what is wrong with that? Is being wishy washy a good thing? Does running after the newest school of thought that someone has come up with here and there make sense either? If being a fundamentalist is actually sticking to fundamentals and not comprimising then I suppose I am one and will wear that title proudly.

When this life is over, one of the many schools of thought is going to be right and the others will be wrong. If everyone is going to heaven regardless of how good or bad or which religion you have followed then I'm still going to be there.

hillbilly79

24-Aug-2006, 06:47 PM

holy crap, i really don't think you can hear yourself when you say these things, you sound like cult leader.

Please don't start insulting me again. You really show your age when you say things like that.

hillbilly79

24-Aug-2006, 06:54 PM

(without getting deep in to the argument...) Has no one thought that as religion and the bible can be seen as devices to further human understanding of things, God is thought of as being 'angry' as that puts it in terms humans can understand?

Well, that is possible. But I believe people are made in God's image and therefore we feel the same emotions that God does. But it would be difficult to misinterperate angry for anything other than angry.

tekkengod

24-Aug-2006, 07:15 PM

Please don't start insulting me again. You really show your age when you say things like that.

I'm not insulting you, I think you would be surprised if you where able to hear something of that nature said about a diffrent religion. it would be rather shocking. that rock hard grasp of truth is what makes it sound so bad.

hillbilly79

24-Aug-2006, 08:13 PM

hillbilly79

24-Aug-2006, 08:26 PM

that rock hard grasp of truth is what makes it sound so bad.

Let me propose another thought to you on this note: After reading some of the responses on this thread and the other one, I am surprised at the number of people who really don't know what they believe. They want to have a little bit from this, a little bit of that line of thinking, a dash from somewhere else. When you add all of that up, you could say that it is being open-minded, but it can also be seen as just trying to apease everyone because heaven forbid anyone get offended.

If I was out here saying the sky was green, I know you'd say prove it, but aren't there just some things you hold as the truth period?

tekkengod

24-Aug-2006, 08:44 PM

tekkengod,

I just looked up the definition and I thought I would get you, but based on the definition which includes a great devotion to any thing or idea I suppose that you are correct and that I am a cultist. (In my defense, however, a cult is usually characterized as a small group of people.)

However, I will not back down from my stance on this. (The following will be more fuel for your fire regarding my standing as a cultist.) Satan is having a field day because many Christians will not proclaim the truth about hell and judgement. Even as I type this, there is honestly a part of me that says don't type things like that and just let everybody believe whatever they want to (not that I can stop or start you from believing). But part of me also knows that this is the truth and to not post this and my other replys would be a disservice to the Lord.

I suppose I took your comment as an insult, because "cults" are not held in positive light (although I still think that is how you meant it).

i'm not calling you a cultist, i said in that instance, you sounded like a cult leader. organized religion does have all the core attributes of a cult though.
and there it is again, in the bolded text, that rock hard, self-asserted calim of truth. we can't know more about satan than we do god. the terminology and language here is almost what i'd expect to hear at a rally. there is no more truth in hell and judgement in hell than the value you give it, as i've said before, your own fears and mystical notions give it more power than it has, you make it your own reality.

Let me propose another thought to you on this note: After reading some of the responses on this thread and the other one, I am surprised at the number of people who really don't know what they believe. They want to have a little bit from this, a little bit of that line of thinking, a dash from somewhere else. When you add all of that up, you could say that it is being open-minded, but it can also be seen as just trying to apease everyone because heaven forbid anyone get offended.

If I was out here saying the sky was green, I know you'd say prove it, but aren't there just some things you hold as the truth period?

whats wrong with being open minded, i have not the slightest problem offending anyone, you'll always get intellectual honesty from me.

yes, if you said the sky was green, i'd simply call u stupid, because we know that it isn't true. but because of the logical "pass" we allow religion, its debateable.

potatodemon

24-Aug-2006, 08:48 PM

I did get you wrong. And I have no trouble imagining that what I have said does come accross as nutso to a lot of people. However, I think now that I am unsure why you started this thread. Is unwaivering a bad thing to be? I stick to my beliefs, what is wrong with that? Is being wishy washy a good thing? Does running after the newest school of thought that someone has come up with here and there make sense either? If being a fundamentalist is actually sticking to fundamentals and not comprimising then I suppose I am one and will wear that title proudly.

When this life is over, one of the many schools of thought is going to be right and the others will be wrong. If everyone is going to heaven regardless of how good or bad or which religion you have followed then I'm still going to be there.
I think it is you how are following one of the latest schools of though.

The Bible was NEVER originally meant to be taken literally. In the Jewish Talmudic tradition you are discouraged from reading Genesis on your own simply because there are so many unanswered questions and it can be interpreted in different ways.

It is only in the past 1000 years it has been taken quite literally

Why is being a fundamentalist a bad thing?

You loose the original means of the metaphors and parables if you insist on taking then literally. You fix some elements into one cultural and temporal context, denying them to speak differently to different generations

You bring it down to your level instead of rising to its.

Because if you take the parables literally you really do lose some of they’re deeper meaning.

Not being fundamentalist does not mean being wishy washy, it means your able to get that some things are not meant to be taken literally

hillbilly79

24-Aug-2006, 09:05 PM

potatodemon,

I cannot even think of a response to what you just said. Its just so...so...NEVER meant to be taken literally! I will reflect on it tonight.

hillbilly79

24-Aug-2006, 09:14 PM

and there it is again, in the bolded text, that rock hard, self-asserted calim of truth. we can't know more about satan than we do god. the terminology and language here is almost what i'd expect to hear at a rally. there is no more truth in hell and judgement in hell than the value you give it, as i've said before, your own fears and mystical notions give it more power than it has, you make it your own reality.

whats wrong with being open minded, i have not the slightest problem offending anyone, you'll always get intellectual honesty from me.

yes, if you said the sky was green, i'd simply call u stupid, because we know that it isn't true. but because of the logical "pass" we allow religion, its debateable.

Alright you're getting that tone with me again...and I like it.

But in your posts I see just as much passion to be "open-minded" as I have to be solid in my beliefs. It's just you want the positive side to be "open-minded;" I want the positive to be "unwaivering."

Also, who is the "we" that allows religion a logical pass, because I know it isn't you speficially. And please define logical pass because I thought all religions based on faith were illogical and irrational.

Aikikai Novice

24-Aug-2006, 09:36 PM

Hmm, anger, jealousy... Aside from the fact that certain words translate in different ways...

The Bible does not state that anger is a sin. In fact, it says, "in your anger, do not sin." (Ephesians 4:26) It continues on to say, "do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold."

Anger in response so a situation is no more inherently sinfull than pain in response to an injury. (The following is from a Christian perspective -) As your character develops, you likely will experience much less anger, having "the peace that passes understanding."

But, the Bible also teaches that allowing anger (or any other "negative" emotion) to have a prolonged effect in your life is... not good.

"For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." (Acts 8:23)

"Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Phillipians 4:5-7)

Devoting your time to something futile (like covetousness, anger, or worry) is the same thing as idolarty - You're "worshiping" a false god by dedicating your energy to it.

"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Mammon." (Luke 16:12-14)

"Mammon" means "stuff" basically. It refers to the material world, and is often translated, "money." (There may have even been a roman god at the time named "Mammon," as Israel was being occupied by Rome.)

Now I know that all the references I've made so far are from the "New Testament" and people pointing out the perceived character defects of Yahweh are more interested in the Old Testament.

Though I do think that the mind of God is something more than we really can comprehend, and I believe that the emotions assigned to God are a kind of "step down translation," I think that we are enough like God to relate to Him on some level. Actually, I think that's more or less the point of our existence.

Anyway, i think all the wrathfull, vengefull and whatever acts of God illustrate two principles - "cause and effect" the first, and "love" the second.

Most of the time in the Old Testament, when Yahweh causes something destructive to happen in "His fierce anger" it was to nations that were completely DEBAUCHED (stuff like pulling fetuses out of women and "passing them through the fire" to Molech, absolute mass cultural sexual abbiguity and promiscuity, and other stuff like that), or to the nation of Israel in particular, which was under God's "special jurisdiction."

Play with fire, you could get burned. Do stupid things, bad stuff could happen to you. Also, the nation of Israel is in a figurative way God's "son."

"Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you." (Deuteronomy 8:5) That was written directly to the nation of Israel.

I think that potatodemon's pantheistic worldview could perhaps allow him to relate to this idea in a sort of Karmatic way. If the universe operates on certain physical (and SPIRITUAL) principles, it's all cause and effect.

potatodemon

25-Aug-2006, 01:15 AM

aikiMac

25-Aug-2006, 03:42 AM

by the way I think if a person really had faith in God they wound't bother over whether the details in a Book about God where correct or not
That kinda depends on those details, don't you think?
I really can't see Zeus and Hera and so on being compatible with Allah, you know?

tekkengod

25-Aug-2006, 03:50 AM

Alright you're getting that tone with me again...and I like it.

But in your posts I see just as much passion to be "open-minded" as I have to be solid in my beliefs. It's just you want the positive side to be "open-minded;" I want the positive to be "unwaivering."

Also, who is the "we" that allows religion a logical pass, because I know it isn't you speficially. And please define logical pass because I thought all religions based on faith were illogical and irrational.

you like it, what tone? do you have an argument fetish? ;)

you lost me, what are you trying to say in the 2nd paragraph?

the "we" is american media, a logical pass is the immunity of critisizim, the man who goes on fox news and claims to be abducted gets ridiculed to no end, the man who claims to talk to god is looked upon as a good upstanding intelligent person.

tekkengod

25-Aug-2006, 03:57 AM

I really can't see Zeus and Hera and so on being compatible with Allah, you know?

whys that?

aikiMac

25-Aug-2006, 04:00 AM

whys that?
Because (1) Allah can't have a child, and (2) Allah can't share his throne.

tekkengod

25-Aug-2006, 04:12 AM

Because (1) Allah can't have a child, and (2) Allah can't share his throne.

why can't he have a child.

aikiMac

25-Aug-2006, 04:16 AM

why can't he have a child.
I don't know.

tekkengod

25-Aug-2006, 04:33 AM

I don't know.

lol atleast your honest :D

hes god, he can do whatever he wants. :)
I don't know if he could beat up zeus though.

aikiMac

25-Aug-2006, 04:51 AM

hes god, he can do whatever he wants. :)

That's not the issue. The issue, or question, is, what does he want? Usually people say that he wants to do things compatible with his revealed nature.

hillbilly79

25-Aug-2006, 01:35 PM

you like it, what tone? do you have an argument fetish? ;)

you lost me, what are you trying to say in the 2nd paragraph?

the "we" is american media, a logical pass is the immunity of critisizim, the man who goes on fox news and claims to be abducted gets ridiculed to no end, the man who claims to talk to god is looked upon as a good upstanding intelligent person.

That sweet, calm tone. Quite the contrary arguing with you makes me miserable. I want you to come over to my side so we don't have to argue anymore. :love:

Who are you talking about getting abducted? And if anybody says they are hearing God with an audible voice I would be deeply suspicous. Is that the case? Do you think the American media is not liberal enough? I don't think they are conservative enough. (Although Fox does do a good job.) By the way are you close to DC in VA?

hillbilly79

25-Aug-2006, 01:38 PM

Hillbilly – I’m just curious, what do southern Baptists Believe about Muslims who honour Jesus as a prophet but not as a divine God

by the way I think if a person really had faith in God they wound't bother over whether the details in a Book about God where correct or not

Muslims who don't accept Jesus as their savior are going to hell.

A question back to you though, you said you were somewhat of a follower of Islam. Does Islam not teach that God gets angry? Or is that just a part that you refuse to accept?

The Devils in the Details!!! Or in this case the Devil is in ignoring the details.

Johnno

25-Aug-2006, 01:50 PM

Muslims who don't accept Jesus as their savior are going to hell.You're a Southern Baptist, right? The Southern Baptist church which was set up because the regular Baptist Church wouldn't accept slavery, which the Southern Baptists tried to justify in Biblical terms.

I think you'll find a lot more Southern Baptists than Muslims down there in Hell.

Davey Bones

25-Aug-2006, 02:03 PM

whys that? (Editor's note: this question was posed in response to the comment that "Allah would not be compatible with Zeus and Hera")

Mainly because they come from two distinctly different cultural traditions. Hence my problem with the fluffy bunny Neo-Pagans who think you can just mash any God/dess into any mold. Doesn't work that way; you can't ignore the religious and cultural traditions which accompany the Divine.

In the bigger picture, you'll find many religious traditions which contain tales of "angry Gods". Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Latin American, Asian, Celtic, Norse. It's all over the place. Whether it is an actual God getting angry or merely a cultural interpretation of natural events is a debate I care not to get into since we all know how *those* go. Christianity is just a convenient target today as the most widely practiced religion. Go back in history and you'll see this same debate over and over and over.

Moosey

25-Aug-2006, 02:08 PM

It seems to me (in my theological ignorance) that there is little contradiction in the presentation of God as long as you take into account that each refers to a God created at a different time with different needs.

The God of the nomadic dedert tribes who vengefully struck down sinners and unbeleivers and demanded total submission and sacrifice was a God required by the need for order and social control. Early attempts to create a society outside of the control of the Egyptians required a new mechanism for preventing anarchy, a replacement for the "Emperor" but without the excuse of a family lineage from the gods to confer the right of control. So the invisible but all-knowing and jealous God of the old testament set down hard and fast rules which ensured orderly conduct in a desert-dwelling society.

When the Romans had conquered the middle East and imposed social order by force, there was no longer the need for an "Angry President" God - the Romans filled that niche - so The God described by Jesus was a God for people already living in a more regulated, comfortable society. This God didn't mind too much if you ate fish on a Friday as long as you maintained the status quo in society - treated people with respect, helped the needy, generally acted in an altrusistic way and gave him your thanks for your good luck. But at the same time, this God said that you really shouldn't be upsetting the Romans too much. If you are in an oppressed socity, be grateful because your reward is in the next life.

Then you have the modern God, worshipped by the average Christian on the street. God who doesn't mind too much if you skip Church on a Sunday as long as you try your best to live a good life and help people when they need your help. The God for a comfortable, developed, well-governed society.

I like this theory because you can take it either way: God is a social construct, created by people and revised to suit the needs of their society at any given time and is therefore revised in line with changes in society. Or alternately, God is playing the long game and presents himself to the world at different times in a way that will shape society into an eventual Utopia. As people learn to govern themselves, God steps back and admires the job he's done shaping these people from frightened, superstitious beings into a confident, self-governing society.

Oh, and there's the God for people on acid in Revelations - but I think, that's a niche market!

Davey Bones

25-Aug-2006, 02:11 PM

Let me propose another thought to you on this note: After reading some of the responses on this thread and the other one, I am surprised at the number of people who really don't know what they believe. They want to have a little bit from this, a little bit of that line of thinking, a dash from somewhere else. When you add all of that up, you could say that it is being open-minded, but it can also be seen as just trying to apease everyone because heaven forbid anyone get offended.

What's wrong with drawing from world traditions and acknowledging that as a Christian, for example, you respect and find value in the teachings of the Buddha? Or Zen philosophy? Or Lao-Tzu? Or modern philosophers and authors? There are a number of modes of thought out there which are complimentary to the major world religions, and the acknowledgment that they provide something of value is not necessarily turning religion into a buffet.

It's not always about "making people happy"; there are folks out there who genuinely believe that when you strip away many of the silly debates about "what is the true path", you'll find a lot of good in various religious thought. That's what a free and responsible search for truth and meaning in this world is all about.

Edit: Damn typos.

hillbilly79

25-Aug-2006, 02:11 PM

Why is being a fundamentalist a bad thing?

You loose the original means of the metaphors and parables if you insist on taking then literally. You fix some elements into one cultural and temporal context, denying them to speak differently to different generations

You bring it down to your level instead of rising to its.

Because if you take the parables literally you really do lose some of they’re deeper meaning.

Not being fundamentalist does not mean being wishy washy, it means your able to get that some things are not meant to be taken literally

Sorry, but parables were Jesus's way of bringing difficult concepts down to our level so that we could be more like God.

Also I am very interested in a parable that has a much deeper meaning when it is NOT taken literally. Could you provide an example of one? And when I say deeper meaning, I don't intend that to be take Gods words and interpret them anyway you want so that you (any individual) can believe anything that leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling and thinking what a wonderful person I am.

hillbilly79

25-Aug-2006, 02:12 PM

Johnno

25-Aug-2006, 02:16 PM

Actually, I want find them in hell because I won't be there.You hope! :D

hillbilly79

25-Aug-2006, 02:55 PM

What's wrong with drawing from world traditions and acknowledging that as a Christian, for example, you respect and find value in the teachings of the Buddha? Or Zen philosophy? Or Lao-Tzu? Or modern philosophers and authors? There are a number of modes of thought out there which are complimentary to the major world religions, and the acknowledgment that they provide something of value is not necessarily turning religion into a buffet.

It's not always about "making people happy"; there are folks out there who genuinely believe that when you strip away many of the silly debates about "what is the true path", you'll find a lot of good in various religious thought. That's what a free and responsible search for truth and meaning in this world is all about.

I respect people who follow the teachings you mention. There is absolutely value in some of the teachings of these philosophies. There is a lot of good in religious thought, but those aren't Gods words. He didn't say believe whatever suits you and I will be OK with it and just come on through the pearly gates. Satanists think they are on the right path too, but are they going to heaven? Would they even want to go to heaven?

Strafio

25-Aug-2006, 04:23 PM

this is pretty simple, for the assumption of argument, he exists, but he clearly isn't perfect. hes clearly an angry ass with an inferiority complex.
Or it might be he's perfect and never get's angry.
Heck, he'd even find your anti-God rants amusing! ;)

aikiMac

25-Aug-2006, 04:50 PM

What's wrong with drawing from world traditions and acknowledging that as a Christian, for example, you respect and find value in the teachings of [cut]
One can find value in numerous religions but I think Hillbilly's point is that somewhere the religions conflict, and to ignore their points of conflict is wilfull blindness -- and that's not at all admirable. For example, Buddhism, the first religion in your list of examples, stands or falls upon the twin premises that (1) reincarnation happens, and (2) we do not have individualized, personal souls. In contrast, Christianity necessarily needs both of these premises to be false. We have a conflict at the core of the religions.

So, no one could truly be both a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time, for the core of the religions conflict. But I would enthusiastically affirm that one could borrow from the overlap of Buddhism and Christianity. And yes, they do overlap away from their cores.

Ditto for other religions.

Davey Bones

25-Aug-2006, 07:01 PM

So, no one could truly be both a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time, for the core of the religions conflict. But I would enthusiastically affirm that one could borrow from the overlap of Buddhism and Christianity. And yes, they do overlap away from their cores.

I respect people who follow the teachings you mention. There is absolutely value in some of the teachings of these philosophies. There is a lot of good in religious thought, but those aren't Gods words. He didn't say believe whatever suits you and I will be OK with it and just come on through the pearly gates.

My point is that you can borrow from and/or respect the traditions of other religions and recognize that they have value and can contribute to your spiritual development. Check out the Unitarian hymnal, for example ("Singing the Living Tradition"). It contains a number of readings and meditations from authors, philosophers, and major religious thought. Then again, not everyone would consider Unitarians "Christians". But it seems to me that you can acknowledge the value of the thought without actually engaging in worship of that faith.

To flesh this out. Why can't a Christian meditate on this quote from the Dalai Lama: "The more we take the welfare of others to heart and work for their benefit, the more benefit we derive for ourselves." Doesn't seem incompatible to me, nor does it equate worship.

Satanists think they are on the right path too, but are they going to heaven? Would they even want to go to heaven?

OK, let's be realistic for a moment, please and avoid the slippery slope arguments. We all know that Christians aren't going to draw from the writings of Anton Le Vay and we all know that Satanists aren't going to draw anything of value from the Bible, Q'ran or Torah.

aikiMac

25-Aug-2006, 07:13 PM

But it seems to me that you can acknowledge the value of the thought without actually engaging in worship of that faith.
Affirmed. :)
(And no, Unitarians are not Christians.)

To flesh this out. Why can't a Christian meditate on this quote from the Dalai Lama: "The more we take the welfare of others to heart and work for their benefit, the more benefit we derive for ourselves."
I think Isaiah said it. :)
I recently watched a couple films about the current Dalai Lama. He kicks ass. I like him.

OK, let's be realistic for a moment, please and avoid the slippery slope arguments. We all know that Christians aren't going to draw from the writings of Anton Le Vay and we all know that Satanists aren't going to draw anything of value from the Bible, Q'ran or Torah.
In that case, could we say that Satanists are closed minded for ignoring three collossal spiritual books? :D :Angel:

Davey Bones

25-Aug-2006, 07:28 PM

Affirmed. :)
(And no, Unitarians are not Christians.)

LOL, many of us would agree with that. :p I'm Signing the Book on Sunday to become a full member, and I don't consider myself a Christian.

I think Isaiah said it. :)
I recently watched a couple films about the current Dalai Lama. He kicks ass. I like him.

Ok, we're on the same page.

In that case, could we say that Satanists are closed minded for ignoring three collossal spiritual books? :D :Angel:

No, they simply realize their religious beliefs are incompatible... again, reality check. Satanists know that their entire religious basis is either too humanistic for Christians (assuming the somewhat intelligent ones), or that their religious beliefs are the very antithesis of Christianity.

EDIT: My suspicions would be that the more well-read and humanistic ones will have experience with Biblical studies. It's only the dumb, white-trash "I wanna be a rebel without a clue" kids who have probably never picked up a Bible and don't even know what they're rebelling against.

hillbilly79

25-Aug-2006, 07:43 PM

No, they simply realize their religious beliefs are incompatible... again, reality check.

But isn't that what aikiMac said: that at their core, all religions are incompatible.

Are you implying that it is OK for Satanists to read the satanic bible and worship Lucifer, yet it is closed-minded for Christians to read the Bible and follow Jesus? Surely not--that would be a bit of a double standard.

Taff

25-Aug-2006, 08:15 PM

Strafio

25-Aug-2006, 08:24 PM

But isn't that what aikiMac said: that at their core, all religions are incompatible.
Not really...
Buddhism, for example, is compatable with any religion that doesn't condemn Buddhism as evil. More moderate and open minded Christians blend with Buddhism quite easily. (I think Aikimac has got a thing for Eastern Religions, especially the one that the Aikido guy signed onto.)

Obviously there are differences between them but most people consider the differences to be trivial.

Are you implying that it is OK for Satanists to read the satanic bible and worship Lucifer, yet it is closed-minded for Christians to read the Bible and follow Jesus? Surely not--that would be a bit of a double standard.
Slight misconception!
1) Lucifer was a mistranslation. The Bible passage in Isiah was referring to "morning star", the nickname given to a Babylonian king. A 5 century Roman mistook Lucifer for a name and people assumed that "Lucifer, how high you have fallen!" was the devil being cast out of heaven.
2) Satanists don't really have much to do with the Satan from the Bible.
I think it's a religion about looking out for number one and being selfish.
Still just a contradictory to Christianity as worshipping the red guy with the pitchfork, but not quite as nuts! :D

Taff

25-Aug-2006, 08:29 PM

Buddhism, for example, is compatable with any religion that doesn't condemn Buddhism as evil. More moderate and open minded Christians blend with Buddhism quite easily.

In another thread, either AikiMac or wrydolphin said that Buddhism and Christianity ARE incompatible from a Christian POV. :confused:

I would guess that from a Buddhist POV, Heaven would be some kind of "conditioned state", but not the highest state, Nirvana? :confused:

aikiMac

25-Aug-2006, 08:36 PM

Buddhism, for example, is compatable with any religion that doesn't condemn Buddhism as evil. More moderate and open minded Christians blend with Buddhism quite easily.
:eek: Are you saying that I got post #58 wrong?!

(I think Aikimac has got a thing for Eastern Religions, especially the one that the Aikido guy signed onto.)
Heh heh heh! :D I have a thing for religion and ethics, because everything that we do in life hangs on these. People are all the same at all times in all places. It doesn't matter if you lived in the time of Fred Flinstone or George Jetson or any century in between. People are the same, and it's religion and ethics that determine one's behavior. It's not physics. It's not astronomy. It's not biology. It's not the other subjects in school. It's religion and ethics.

The cool thing that Ueshiba did was unite his religion with his martial art to such a degree that they became one and the same. That's so unspeakably cool. :D

Davey Bones

25-Aug-2006, 08:52 PM

But isn't that what aikiMac said: that at their core, all religions are incompatible.

Are you implying that it is OK for Satanists to read the satanic bible and worship Lucifer, yet it is closed-minded for Christians to read the Bible and follow Jesus? Surely not--that would be a bit of a double standard.

I'll try this again:

This has nothing to do with worship, which you seem to be stuck on. We're not talking about "worship", unless to you, worship is so tied in with simply reading any religious book that you cannot separate the two. We're talking about realizing that other books, works of philosophy, authors, etc, have something to contriubte to one's spirituality, worldview, or outlook on life despite the fact that author, philosopher, etc, is not of your faith. It is possible to do so without sinning.

Reread my example about meditating on the quote from the Dalai Lama and get back to me. Meditating on a quote from the head of another spiritual organization is not "following" them in the religious sense. If it is to you, tell me now, because this conversation will be over. I'm a Unitarian and don't really appreciate the fundamentalist and dogmatic approach to reading religious literature.

And no, all religions are not "incompatible". Otherwise why do we lump Judaism, Christianity, and Judaism together into one religious family?

Oh, and a quick overview of Satanism:
Instead of divine laws or naturistic principles (such as in Wicca), Satanism generally focuses upon material or physical advancement of the self with guidance from external higher beings or external principles, instead of submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. For this reason, many contemporary Satanists eschew traditional religious beliefs, attitudes and worship in favor of more egoistic, self-centering worldviews, natural law, survival of the fittest and practices such as materialism, individualism and magic. However, some Satanists do choose voluntary moral codes.

To the Philosophical Satanist, a person is his own god. He disdains rationalist, secular humanistic beliefs, seeing them as abhoring the existence of the supernatural, only to thereby promote a sterile life grounded in the 'real world' alone and sees them as working towards the altruistic advancement of his fellow man while neglecting due attendance to one's own gratification and fulfillment.

LaVey was the founder of the Church of Satan (c.a. 1966). LaVey was influenced by the writings of Aleister Crowley, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Marquis De Sade, Wyndham Lewis, Charles Darwin, Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain and others.

Religious Satanism is often similar in outlook and attitude to Philosophical Satanism, though it is generally a prerequisite that the Satanist accept a theological and metaphysical canon involving one or more God(s) who are either Satan in the strictest, Abrahamic sense, or specially created to identify with or represent the practitioner. A Satan represented in the latter group may be entirely of the practitioner's mind, or may be an adoption from another (usually pre-Christian) religion.

If you're going to toss around the misnomer of "Satanist", at least know what the hell you're talking about.

Taff

25-Aug-2006, 08:52 PM

it's religion and ethics that determine one's behavior. It's not physics.

You could say that at the deepest level, it IS physics that determines one's behaviour.

aikiMac

25-Aug-2006, 09:08 PM

You could say that at the deepest level, it IS physics that determines one's behaviour.
And that claim will be intimately tied to a religious view about the nature of people. :) Is there a soul in there too? Is the physics at that level deterministic? If so, do we have free will? If we don't have a free will, to what degree should we punish wrong behavior? Speaking of how one "should" act and whether there is "wrong" behavior and whether there "should" be punishments takes us to ethics.

Taff

25-Aug-2006, 09:40 PM

And that claim will be intimately tied to a religious view about the nature of people. :) Is there a soul in there too? Is the physics at that level deterministic? If so, do we have free will? If we don't have a free will, to what degree should we punish wrong behavior? Speaking of how one "should" act and whether there is "wrong" behavior and whether there "should" be punishments takes us to ethics.

You could fill a library with such discussions :)

"Is the physics at that level deterministic". Hmmm. I wouldn't think so. But it would still be physics. But does that mean our thoughts are governed by chance? Governed by collapse of some wavefunction? I don't like the sound of that.

Strafio

26-Aug-2006, 12:01 AM

Buddhism, the first religion in your list of examples, stands or falls upon the twin premises that (1) reincarnation happens, and (2) we do not have individualized, personal souls.
I actually disagree with this.
These are beliefs that Buddhists have come up with but I think most Buddhists agree that they aren't essential. The essentials are just the four noble truths. Likewise, if a Christian took certain passages of the 'good book' metaphorically rather than literally then they might find the above beliefs as acceptable possibilities... but it would more likely be the other way round. Christianity generally prefers to stick to the Bible as closely as possible wheras Buddhism puts more emphasis on following its guidelines in spirit rather than letting attachment to imperfect rules and descriptions of the world hold you back from enlightenment.

I know what you mean though, Christians and Buddhists generally believe things that contradict each other. Some people assume means that they can't both be 'right' but I think that's based on a mis-understanding on theology. My theory is that all theology (apart from the stories/myths) is spoken in metaphor. Our literal language is designed to represent the world of our senses. God and the supernatural are outside of that world.

When people use metaphors to describe X, their metaphors will depend on lots of things. Some metaphors might describe X better than others but two different metaphors can still be correct.
"I see it like this!", "I see it more like this!"
There's a certain amount of subjectivity.
So I think there's real substance to the story of the blind men and the elephant when it comes to theology.

aikiMac

26-Aug-2006, 12:25 AM

I actually disagree with this.
These are beliefs that Buddhists have come up with but I think most Buddhists agree that they aren't essential. The essentials are just the four noble truths.
And can all this be divorced from the Buddhist belief in karma, while staying true to the Buddhist interpretation of the 4 Truths? And can karma be divorced from reincarnation?

Could you really say, "I'm following the teachings of Buddha," if you deny reincarnation and you affirm that you have an individualized, personal, separate identity? :eek:

Where's CKava?

Likewise, if a Christian took certain passages of the 'good book' metaphorically rather than literally then they might find the above beliefs as acceptable possibilities.
I take the Bible pretty literally, and even I can see merit in the 4 truths. But, still, I fail to see how one can remove reincarnation (and its partner, karma) from Buddhism. :eek:

Davey Bones

26-Aug-2006, 12:34 AM

I take the Bible pretty literally, and even I can see merit in the 4 truths. But, still, I fail to see how one can remove reincarnation (and its partner, karma) from Buddhism. :eek:

Who said you have to take or remove anything from either ;)

The Law of Karma is taught in the esoteric Christian tradition, Essenian and later Rosicrucian, as the "Law of Cause and Consequence/Effect" [1]. However, this western esoteric tradition adds that the essence of the teachings of Christ is that the law of sin and death may be overcome by Love, which will restore immortality.

Karma is simply the golden rule: what you give out is what you receive - either in the same or in similar form. You reap what you sow - your actions create that which you do live out now, whether this relates to a past/future life situation or to the present date.

Footnote:^ Max Heindel, The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception or Mystic Christianity (Part I, Chapter IV: Rebirth and the Law of Consequence), ISBN 0-911274-34-0, 1909

Strafio

26-Aug-2006, 12:52 AM

Karma you don't have to take as a mystical law.
A rule of thumb is all that's necessary.
"the suffering I cause generally leaves me miserable too"
Re-birth can be seen as a moral wager, something to stop you thinking 'well, life's over now so I might as well give up!'

Because Buddhism is first and foremost about the practicalities of preventing suffering, the theory of the world isn't essential so long as it fits the practice. I think some more fundamentalist Christianity might contradict some of the four noble truths, like how we can put an end to our suffering. (they'd say divine intervention is our only hope)
One characteristic of Buddhism is how it has always merged with the current cultures of any region is has moved to. That's why Buddhism is slightly different everywhere you go.

dturtleman

26-Aug-2006, 01:17 AM

You're a Southern Baptist, right? The Southern Baptist church which was set up because the regular Baptist Church wouldn't accept slavery, which the Southern Baptists tried to justify in Biblical terms.

I think you'll find a lot more Southern Baptists than Muslims down there in Hell.
I have to tell you, Johno, you may have your church history right, but your theology is uniformed. I don't know about the history of the Baptists, and whether your claim about the Southern Baptists trying to justify slavery is true or not. however, it those Baptists repented of their sins, and asked for God to forgive them their sins, for Jesus' sake, they go to heaven. It doesn't matter what acts they did; God offers full forgiveness for cheats, liars, murderers, sex offenders, everybody. By God's standards, EVERYONE is unacceptable to God; it doesn't matter how few or many sins you've comitted; you get a pass. There's no 100% sure way to know about somebody else. However, if those Muslims don't ask for God forgiveness, through Jesus, I hate to tell you, they're not finding salvation. Period.

Aikikai Novice

26-Aug-2006, 01:30 AM

I have something interesting to note about "Lucifer" as the mistranslation of a Babalonian king... I just was reading through that part of the Bible recently.

If you read through the Bible, you will notice that all throughout, from Genesis to Revelations, there are situations in which a recurring theme presents itself - savior / antichrist. Over and over, to one degree or another, different characters present themselves as a kind of "picture" or "incarnation" of these roles.

Anyway, the point that I'm trying to get to is that that prophesy in Isaiah chapter 14 could very well have been refering both litterally to the king of Babylon and metaphorically to Satan. Possibly litterally to both, if Satan was physically in Babylon at the time.

Satan is finite, like humans, and can only be in one place at a given time. But the Bible hints that all the fallen hosts are straegically assigned to specific people, places, and things. Something has to be really important if Satan is going to focus his PERSONAL attention on it. This is from Daniel:

"Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

This was an angelic visitor, refering to the angel Michael (guardian angel of the nation of Israel) and the "king of Persia" - A DEAMON assigned to persia.

So...yeah. I'm late.

hillbilly79

26-Aug-2006, 02:14 AM

Gangrel,

Thank you for the politically correct mission statement of Satanists. What ideal statements they make of themselves in order to find new recruits. Almost makes SATANISM not sound so bad. How ridiculous. Those people are evil. Period. But I have to give them one thing, at least they realize satan does have power in this world for now. God will relinquish that control one of these days and show us how angry He can get.

Thelistmaker

26-Aug-2006, 03:11 AM

Gangrel,

Thank you for the politically correct mission statement of Satanists. What ideal statements they make of themselves in order to find new recruits. Almost makes SATANISM not sound so bad. How ridiculous. Those people are evil. Period.
Why do you believe this?

Have you every met a Satanist?

How do you know that what these people call Satan (and some don’t believe in/worship Satan at all) is not just another aspect of God?

Hypothetically, if these people do worship Satan out of delusions about the about the nature of Satan or about the nature of the world how does that made them ‘evil. Period’

If you say chairman Mao was evil, does that mean every member of the peoples congress is evil?

If you wish to say that these people choose to follow Satan of their own free will I would argue that it is far too simplistic. Any choice will inevitably be made in ignorance and be influenced by all sorts of opinions and beliefs a person has acquired through their life and environment. To some extent everyone is subject to social programming.

Can’t we be a little more understanding and compassionate about people. Humans are too complex to simply be labelled ‘evil’ from a distance.

tekkengod

26-Aug-2006, 03:39 AM

What ideal statements they make of themselves in order to find new recruits. Almost makes SATANISM not sound so bad. How ridiculous. Those people are evil. Period. But I have to give them one thing, at least they realize satan does have power in this world for now. God will relinquish that control one of these days and show us how angry He can get.

total ignorance.

christianity is just as guilty if you want to play the game of recruitment, they attack kids with broken ideas and it works, atleast the satanists have to apply to something a little more aimed at the older crowd. i'ver never heard of nor seen a satanist recruting anyone, i've seen it far too often from you guys though.
you know absolutely nothing about satanisim. you know nothing of atton levy, you know absolutely nothing about the subject, i'll bet 100 million that you have never met a satanist, satanisim doesn't even lay on the christian concept of satan, they are against worship of any kind. they aren't acknowladging anything, certainly not satans supposed existance or knowladge. so your god will take away the power he gave to his only enemy to kill his children, because he feels the deisre to......one day......you don't question the idea that he gave his only enemy power in the first place, then allows him to indiscriminately kill people.....his children....thats pure comedy gold my friend.....again, i don't think you can hear yourself. and just to be clear, yes, i've met a satanist, only one, an acquaintance, stand up guy he was.

Thelistmaker

26-Aug-2006, 03:44 AM

I knew a satanist, she was a very interesting person. Certainly not what I'd call evil.

she's curretly in Brazil working for a charity. Done a lot of good in her life that woman

Sparkle

26-Aug-2006, 03:52 AM

This thread reminds me of a quote in the Gunslingers series from Steven King . . . . "When traitors are called heroes (or heroes traitors, he supposed in his frowning way), dark times must have fallen. Dark times, indeed."

The thing that is the most screwy though, is that can be looked at differently and the same by both sides.

Sparkle

26-Aug-2006, 03:53 AM

I met a satanist once, she was a very interesting person. Certainly not what I'd call evil.

she's curretly in Brazil working for a charity. Done a lot of good in her life that woman

Really now, you know this from a person you met . . once? Hmmm

aikiMac

26-Aug-2006, 06:34 AM

Buddhism, the first religion in your list of examples, stands or falls upon the twin premises that (1) reincarnation happens, and (2) we do not have individualized, personal souls.
But, still, I fail to see how one can remove reincarnation (and its partner, karma) from Buddhism.
I actually disagree with this.
These are beliefs that Buddhists have come up with but I think most Buddhists agree that they aren't essential.
Tonight I finished Buddhism Plain & Simple by Steve Hagen. He’s credited as Zen priest with an official certificate to teach the Dharma. The book supposedly presents the beliefs that all Buddhist traditions share in common. Hagen describes it as “Buddhism’s essentials, free of the fetters and cultural trappings that have accumulated over 25 centuries.” The author of the famed Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is quoted on the front cover as saying, “This is the clearest and most precise exposition of Buddhism I have ever read.”

My point: chapters 11, 12, and the lengthy appendix (why it’s an appendix and not chapter 13, I don’t know, because it reads as a chapter) explicitly teach (1) that we do not have individualized, personal souls, and (2) reincarnation happens to all of us.

Reincarnation is the necessary corollary to the lack of individuality. "Nothing dies," he says.

Ta-duh. :Angel:

aikiMac

26-Aug-2006, 06:59 AM

What's so bad about Satanism? (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30482)

Lucifer (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29370)

Hapuka

26-Aug-2006, 09:59 AM

[QUOTE=tekkengod]oh great here we go again, let me sum up this thread real quick. "my god doesn't get mad hes perfectm even though he clearly gets angry, and so do i because i am made in his image, he is perfect, even though he kills babies, he loves me even though he has an addiction to vengence and is going to set me on fire in the near future because i called him by the wrong name" this gets so old. if its a concept with a gender and a history, we can assign human qualities to it.

When did god kill babies? :eek:

Hapuka

26-Aug-2006, 10:40 AM

Muslims who don't accept Jesus as their savior are going to hell.

A question back to you though, you said you were somewhat of a follower of Islam. Does Islam not teach that God gets angry? Or is that just a part that you refuse to accept?

The Devils in the Details!!! Or in this case the Devil is in ignoring the details.

Im a christian. But there is one thing I have to say..... Dont not judge others. Leave that to god :cool:.

Davey Bones

26-Aug-2006, 11:25 AM

Strafio

26-Aug-2006, 04:44 PM

I have something interesting to note about "Lucifer" as the mistranslation of a Babalonian king... I just was reading through that part of the Bible recently.

If you read through the Bible, you will notice that all throughout, from Genesis to Revelations, there are situations in which a recurring theme presents itself - savior / antichrist. Over and over, to one degree or another, different characters present themselves as a kind of "picture" or "incarnation" of these roles.

Anyway, the point that I'm trying to get to is that that prophesy in Isaiah chapter 14 could very well have been refering both litterally to the king of Babylon and metaphorically to Satan. Possibly litterally to both, if Satan was physically in Babylon at the time.
Interesting theory.
The fact is, the mythology of Lucifer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer) originated from a mistranslation. Yes, you can still interpret the mythology of 'the devil' in the text in the same way I can interpret a Buddhist philosophy out of Jesus' teachings, but I've been told we're not supposed to do that! :Angel:

Also, I think Satan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer) is also misunderstood. He was God's prosecutor angel. He judged people and persecuted them for breaking God's laws. Christian mythology gradually decided that he was a nasty piece of work and decided to make him the devil also. Not saying that he can't be, it's just that it's a case of reading a favoured mythology out of the text rather than taking it for what it literally says.

Taff

26-Aug-2006, 04:53 PM

There's no 100% sure way to know about somebody else. However, if those Muslims don't ask for God forgiveness, through Jesus, I hate to tell you, they're not finding salvation. Period.

If you're going to write "period" at the end of a statement, you should make sure that what you're saying is pretty damn true, not just speculation.

dturtleman

26-Aug-2006, 06:30 PM

If you're going to write "period" at the end of a statement, you should make sure that what you're saying is pretty damn true, not just speculation.
what i'm saying is true. just because you don't want to hear the truth, doesn't make it any less true. salvation is not based on anyone's good deeds, and damnation isn't based on bad deeds, exactly; bad deeds are evidence of a sinful nature, found in everyone. that's me, you, everyone. doing good deeds doesn't fix that bad, twisted nature. only jesus' sacrifice can amend that. you can pray to any small-g god in the world, but there's only one way to salvation. when you're dealing with questions of eternity, the last approach that should be used, is to make sure everyone feels warm and happy, that their particular beliefs are respected, affirmed, loved, and all judged equally true. that's foolishness. not everyone's beliefs will all be right at the same time. no way. and by the way...period.

Strafio

26-Aug-2006, 06:41 PM

Ok.
So what makes you think that your speculation is 'the truth' and that you have it right and that everyone else has gotten it all wrong? And what seperates you from the rest of the people who claim to have 'the truth'?

Taff

26-Aug-2006, 07:16 PM

what i'm saying is true.

No, it's SPECULATION

just because you don't want to hear the truth, doesn't make it any less true.

You're right, I don't want to hear the "truth", because it's just speculation.

only jesus' sacrifice can amend that.

So says you, and some old book.

you can pray to any small-g god in the world, but there's only one way to salvation.

I'm so glad you're around to tell us these things.

not everyone's beliefs will all be right at the same time. no way. and by the way...period.

In which case, maybe your beliefs are wrong.

Scratch that.

Your beliefs are wrong. Period.

^
Look I can do it to! I win!

Mixitup

26-Aug-2006, 07:26 PM

Im a christian. But there is one thing I have to say..... Dont not judge others. Leave that to god :cool:.

What about a Judge or a magistrate?

Out of interest, if I turned up to date your daughter unshaven, with a pink mohechan, smoking a dodgy fag with a <edited>the pope t-shirt on, would she be going out that night?

Thelistmaker

26-Aug-2006, 07:41 PM

Hillbilly – just wondering, when you think of Satanists do any of these things come to mind in a serious way:

Sexual perversions
Pedophilia
Kidnapping
Child abuse
Human/animal sacrifice
Drugs
Hidden meetings
Occult symbols

If so then you’re projecting what is normally regarded as taboo in society onto an appropriate group. The same pattern has been repeated through out history. Even the Romans accuses the early Christians of very similar things.

Thelistmaker

26-Aug-2006, 07:42 PM

Really now, you know this from a person you met . . once? Hmmm
once is just a local figure of speach in west yorshire, it can mean a long time ago.

As in once upon a time...

I knew the woman I was talking about for about 5 years but havn't seen her for a long time.

Infact I'll take once out of my original post just for you Americans ;)

Mixitup

26-Aug-2006, 08:09 PM

Hillbilly – just wondering, when you think of Satanists do any of these things come to mind in a serious way:

Sexual perversions

Kidnapping?

Human/animal sacrifice
Drugs
Hidden meetings
Occult symbols

If so then you’re projecting what is normally regarded as taboo in society onto an appropriate group. The same pattern has been repeated through out history. Even the Romans accuses the early Christians of very similar things.

It's a valid lifestyle choice when you put it like this though

tekkengod

26-Aug-2006, 08:43 PM

what i'm saying is true. just because you don't want to hear the truth, doesn't make it any less true. salvation is not based on anyone's good deeds, and damnation isn't based on bad deeds, exactly; bad deeds are evidence of a sinful nature, found in everyone. that's me, you, everyone. doing good deeds doesn't fix that bad, twisted nature. only jesus' sacrifice can amend that. you can pray to any small-g god in the world, but there's only one way to salvation. when you're dealing with questions of eternity, the last approach that should be used, is to make sure everyone feels warm and happy, that their particular beliefs are respected, affirmed, loved, and all judged equally true. that's foolishness. not everyone's beliefs will all be right at the same time. no way. and by the way...period.

no you're right, not hearing it doesn't make it not true, but not being able to prove it does. and ranting with the logic of a lunatic doesn't do much for it either.

hillbilly79

26-Aug-2006, 11:05 PM

christianity is just as guilty if you want to play the game of recruitment, they attack kids with broken ideas and it works, atleast the satanists have to apply to something a little more aimed at the older crowd. i'ver never heard of nor seen a satanist recruting anyone, i've seen it far too often from you guys though.

Unfortunately, satanists don't need to recruit. If you are not on God's side then you are automatically on Satan's side.

Gary

26-Aug-2006, 11:07 PM

Unfortunately, satanists don't need to recruit. If you are not on God's side then you are automatically on Satan's side.
You're either ignorant or trolling, i really can't decide which.

hillbilly79

26-Aug-2006, 11:24 PM

Have you every met a Satanist?

How do you know that what these people call Satan (and some don’t believe in/worship Satan at all) is not just another aspect of God?

Hypothetically, if these people do worship Satan out of delusions about the about the nature of Satan or about the nature of the world how does that made them ‘evil. Period’

If you wish to say that these people choose to follow Satan of their own free will I would argue that it is far too simplistic. Any choice will inevitably be made in ignorance and be influenced by all sorts of opinions and beliefs a person has acquired through their life and environment. To some extent everyone is subject to social programming.

Can’t we be a little more understanding and compassionate about people. Humans are too complex to simply be labelled ‘evil’ from a distance.
Have I ever met a Satanist? Yes, there is a witch that works in my building. I see her quite frequently in passing, she is usually smiling, I smile back, we make small talk hello, how are you. She seems like a very nice person. But every time I see her I think about how she is headed down a road that leads to eternal damnation and it is quite upsetting.

Satan doesn't want you to think he is another aspect of God, he wants to be THE almightly god. But he never will be; he has always been second. Thus God will punish him appropriately.

I would have thought that the evil who surrounds a person that would invoke satan's power or praise him would not require explanation.

Thank God I had the power to resist social programming. Following the one true God is not popular and yielding to social programming would have led me to serve another god, even if it was myself.

Humans can't be labeled evil from a distance? Is that why the prisions in this country are slowly emptying? When is the last time you heard of a prision warden or guard being laid off because there weren't enough criminals anymore? Are they gutting the prisions where you live and turning them into schools or offices or something else more beneficial to society? The world is getting worse and will continue to get worse. Satanists, I guess are just more bold in their self-worship. You're right, I shouldn't have judged. The world would be much more peaceful if we followed the satanists' moral code.

tekkengod

26-Aug-2006, 11:38 PM

Unfortunately, satanists don't need to recruit. If you are not on God's side then you are automatically on Satan's side.

WHAT!?!?! so if i'm not a christian I'm a satanist? is that what you're saying, i wanna know. if it is, i don't have much to be worried about, god isn't putting up much of a fight. :rolleyes:

Have I ever met a Satanist? Yes, there is a witch that works in my building. I see her quite frequently in passing, she is usually smiling, I smile back, we make small talk hello, how are you. She seems like a very nice person. But every time I see her I think about how she is headed down a road that leads to eternal damnation and it is quite upsetting.

Satan doesn't want you to think he is another aspect of God, he wants to be THE almightly god. But he never will be; he has always been second. Thus God will punish him appropriately.

I would have thought that the evil who surrounds a person that would invoke satan's power or praise him would not require explanation.

Thank God I had the power to resist social programming. Following the one true God is not popular and yielding to social programming would have led me to serve another god, even if it was myself.

Humans can't be labeled evil from a distance? Is that why the prisions in this country are slowly emptying? When is the last time you heard of a prision warden or guard being laid off because there weren't enough criminals anymore? Are they gutting the prisions where you live and turning them into schools or offices or something else more beneficial to society? The world is getting worse and will continue to get worse. Satanists, I guess are just more bold in their self-worship. You're right, I shouldn't have judged. The world would be much more peaceful if we followed the satanists' moral code.

1. after reading that comment about the witch i'm suspecting you of being a troll, or literally mentaly unstable...can't decide yet. how do you know shes a witch? being a witch doesn't make her a satanist.
2. why not? obviously if hes got the power to be 2nd, god doesn't have him under raps entierly. hes not being punished, he was given power, again, a flawed concept.
3. clearly you've been socially programmed to the point as to not even know it, the comments you make are very clearly someone elses opinion. and what do you mean by surrounding evil?
4. right, people are too complex, theres too many factor to call someone evil, thats pretty simple.

Hapuka

27-Aug-2006, 12:04 AM

Brisks

27-Aug-2006, 12:09 AM

I dont get this tread :confused:. This thread seems like everyone is judging each other. For christains It says in the bible leave the judging to god. Also I feel that people are trying to push there religion on to each other. It also says in the bible you shouldn't force people into beliving god. Do it by grace instead of fighting/augering with others :Angel:.

Yeah but then the Pope used to say go kill everyone in so and so religion (Crusades). Religion is a big scam, I won't bother trying to force my ideals on religous members since it's a waste of time. I just find it funny how dissapointed when they die, to find out they donated money to the church, and wasted their sunday morning worshping something that didn't exist when all they were actually doing is lining the Popes and cardinals pockets.

Hapuka

27-Aug-2006, 12:40 AM

Yeah but then the Pope used to say go kill everyone in so and so religion (Crusades). Religion is a big scam, I won't bother trying to force my ideals on religous members since it's a waste of time. I just find it funny how dissapointed when they die, to find out they donated money to the church, and wasted their sunday morning worshping something that didn't exist when all they were actually doing is lining the Popes and cardinals pockets.

Nothing against catholics here.
What the pope did back then was wrong. He was forcing people to become catholic. And It wasn't only the pope it was the head of the church too. Adding new rules to Jesus's teaching they become almost like the Pharisees. Jesus did not want us to force our religion on to others. I just feel thats what people in this thread are doing. :o

medi

27-Aug-2006, 12:42 AM

Do it by grace instead of fighting/augering with others :Angel:.

Augering?

http://www.belltec.net/images/h_series/backhoe.jpg

medi

27-Aug-2006, 12:46 AM

The world is getting worse and will continue to get worse.

It always makes me laugh when people say that.

Yeah! Let's build a time machine and go back to live in Feudal Europe! Back when people had real values.

tekkengod

27-Aug-2006, 12:47 AM

It always makes me laugh when people say that.

Yeah! Let's build a time machine and go back to live in Feudal Europe! Back when people had real values.

:D HAHA! if only right.

aikiMac

27-Aug-2006, 12:48 AM

I dont get this tread :confused:. This thread seems like everyone is judging each other. For christains It says in the bible leave the judging to god.
(I take it you haven't read Peter's epistles. There's a little more to the story than the near-cliche "judge not lest ye be judged.")

Hapuka

27-Aug-2006, 01:00 AM

I'll have to look that one up :cool:.

CKava

27-Aug-2006, 01:43 AM

Where's CKava?
I'm enjoying myself greatly in Japan and living the high life with my significant other who I don't get to see very often hence why I'm generally unable to write the replies I'd like to (though I have read the threads when I'm waiting around). I wrote a LONG reply on the other thread were you were talking about the omnipotency of the Buddha but the stupid internet cafe deleted it so I've given up on offering my 2 cents until I return to London.

Very briefly- I'd say your asseration that anatma and reincarnation are central features to most forms of Buddhism is accurate (though their are of course notable exceptions). But I'd also say that detachment and being non-dogmatic are also central features common to nearly all Buddhist teachings and that puts a bit of a dent in the argument that you must believe A and B to be a Buddhist. In real life such detachment isn't always reflected by Buddhist groups... but it is still the ideal.

The well known Buddhist story about the man (Buddhist) desiring to cross the fast flowing river (samsara) and get to the other shore (enlightenment) makes the point of detachment from teachings quite forcefully. We are told that when the man tries to cross the river unaided (without Buddhist teachings) he finds it very difficult to not get swept away by the current (desires of samsara) and as such he quickly comes to realise he needs a boat (teachings i.e. a vehicle) if he is to cross. After constructing his boat from the available materials (available teachings) he finds it easier to cross the river but due to the strength of the current it may take many attempts and in the end he will only make it across if he has constructed a strong boat (the most suitable teachings for him). However, once he reaches the other shore (enlightenment) it is said that he should not carry his boat with him as it has already served it's purpose and to carry it now would just be a burden as it is heavy (with attachment).

Anthony De Mello used a similiar analogy saying that the donkey (your image of God) you use to get to your house (real experience of God) must be dismounted before you can enter. Is that a Christian parable or just one of his stories?

tekkengod

27-Aug-2006, 01:57 AM

Anthony De Mello used a similiar analogy saying that the donkey (your image of God) you use to get to your house (a real experience of God) must be dismounted before you can enter. Is that a Christian parable or just one of his stories?

EVERYTHING is a parable. I've yet to find anything that hasn't been.

maybe its just taken out of context/misunderstood/mistranslated. :)

Strafio

27-Aug-2006, 02:11 AM

I don't think it was in the Bible. Sounds like a De Mello original.
I looked up De Mello after seeing your sig.
Wasn't expecting him to be a jesuit priest. (that saying is very eastern sounding)
Having said that, the Catholic Church did dis-own some of his ideas in his end, saying they contradicted the essence of the Christian faith.

CKava

27-Aug-2006, 02:33 AM

Yes I know Strafio. Rather tainted my image of the Church hierarchy that they did that after he died. It was the present Pope who made that statement as well... back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

Thelistmaker

27-Aug-2006, 02:40 AM

Unfortunately, satanists don't need to recruit. If you are not on God's side then you are automatically on Satan's side.
:o I’m not in the least trying to insulting you but you actually sound a little schizophrenic in the clinical sense.
If you’re sure you don’t have any issues why not have a routine examination so no one can claim your ill for a while.

aikiMac

27-Aug-2006, 02:48 AM

Very briefly- I'd say your asseration that anatma and reincarnation are central features to most forms of Buddhism is accurate (though their are of course notable exceptions). But I'd also say that detachment and being non-dogmatic are also central features common to nearly all Buddhist teachings and that puts a bit of a dent in the argument that you must believe A and B to be a Buddhist.
I'd like to read about the Buddhism that is built upon reincarnation not happening, and built upon anatma being a false view. Who has written on it?

Anthony De Mello used a similiar analogy saying that the donkey (your image of God) you use to get to your house (real experience of God) must be dismounted before you can enter. Is that a Christian parable or just one of his stories?
If you mean is it in the Bible, the answer is no. I haven't heard that story but neither am I familiar with DeMello.

tekkengod

27-Aug-2006, 03:24 AM

:o I’m not in the least trying to insulting you but you actually sound a little schizophrenic in the clinical sense.
If you’re sure you don’t have any issues why not have a routine examination so no one can claim your ill for a while.

yeah i really have to 2nd that notion.
to be honest you sound only a few footsteps away from a killing spree. i mean, i'm very clearly a direct enemy of god...maybe you should come get me? :woo:

Thelistmaker

27-Aug-2006, 03:26 AM

Saw this in another thread, found it quite relevant

By the way, if there really is such thing as an antichrist, I'm pretty sure he already came and died a while ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

tekkengod

27-Aug-2006, 03:28 AM

wow, well i can be sure to add those numbers next time the topic of religious war comes up.

Davey Bones

27-Aug-2006, 11:07 AM

Have I ever met a Satanist? Yes, there is a witch that works in my building. I see her quite frequently in passing, she is usually smiling, I smile back, we make small talk hello, how are you. She seems like a very nice person. But every time I see her I think about how she is headed down a road that leads to eternal damnation and it is quite upsetting.

I can pretty much tell you that woman doesn't worship the devil. Nor is she on the path to eternal damnation. You're just to damn fundamentalist to belive that.

Satan doesn't want you to think he is another aspect of God, he wants to be THE almightly god. But he never will be; he has always been second. Thus God will punish him appropriately.

Great; half the people in this thread don't care about Satan. Once again, I am utterly amazed that the question about the Dalai Lama resulted in this tripe.

I would have thought that the evil who surrounds a person that would invoke satan's power or praise him would not require explanation.

You're much like the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live... you seem to see evil EVERYWHERE.

Thank God I had the power to resist social programming. Following the one true God is not popular and yielding to social programming would have led me to serve another god, even if it was myself.

Maybe you can resist what you refer to as "social programming", but you sure as hell got brainwashed by your church. Hate to disappoint you, sweetie, but yours ain't the one true path, and the rest of us ain't going to hell for believing in another religion. If that gives you comfort, great. Too bad you're WRONG.

Humans can't be labeled evil from a distance? <snip silly sarcastic commentary>

You really want to know what's wrong? What's wrong is the fact that every time someone suggest a way to make things better, the fundies and the conservative right shoot it down. Maybe if some people would shut up and let the folks in the trenches come up with effective social policy instead of hacking at their budgets, we might get things done. The day society spends less time worrying about putting criminals away and more time helping them become productive members of society we'll be in a better place. Satan has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Unless you consider GW Bush a Satanist, in which case I'll blame him, the little weasel.

Unfortunately, satanists don't need to recruit. If you are not on God's side then you are automatically on Satan's side.

Uhm, no. Once again, the fallacy of the Fundamentalist. "Our side, or Hell's side". Wow. How totally and 100% ignorant. Let me clue you in on a lttle secret....

Wicca, Buddhist, Zen, Unitarian, Jewish, Muslim.... It doesn't matter. They're not going to hell because they don't follow your faith. Deal with it, continue hiding your head in the sand and pretending the devil is making people worship false gods, watever. You really need a reality check, though.

Strafio

27-Aug-2006, 12:47 PM

I'd like to read about the Buddhism that is built upon reincarnation not happening, and built upon anatma being a false view. Who has written on it?
Being pedantic, Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation is the Hindu version. Buddhists prefer to call what they believe in as Re-Birth. I think it involves a rejection of the permanent soul

It's like was Ckava said.
There's no particular sect that disbelieves in rebirth, just the general attitude that particular metaphysical beliefs like rebirth aren't necessary to the Buddhist path. So long as you have a world view that doesn't clash with the Buddhist path then it's fine in Buddhism and the discussion of disagreements would be equivilant to a discussion of disagreements over what Harry Potter's favourite food was or whether Hermionie and Ron were going to get it on in the next book...

If you mean is it in the Bible, the answer is no. I haven't heard that story but neither am I familiar with DeMello.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_de_Mello_%28priest%29) is always great for this kind of thing.
I've not heard of him either but I like the quotes that Ckava keeps bringing up. I've definitely made up my mind to steal the 'slippers' one for my own use! ;)

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 03:32 PM

I can pretty much tell you that woman doesn't worship the devil. Nor is she on the path to eternal damnation. You're just to damn fundamentalist to belive that.

Great; half the people in this thread don't care about Satan. Once again, I am utterly amazed that the question about the Dalai Lama resulted in this tripe.

You're much like the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live... you seem to see evil EVERYWHERE.

Maybe you can resist what you refer to as "social programming", but you sure as hell got brainwashed by your church. Hate to disappoint you, sweetie, but yours ain't the one true path, and the rest of us ain't going to hell for believing in another religion. If that gives you comfort, great. Too bad you're WRONG.

You really want to know what's wrong? What's wrong is the fact that every time someone suggest a way to make things better, the fundies and the conservative right shoot it down. Maybe if some people would shut up and let the folks in the trenches come up with effective social policy instead of hacking at their budgets, we might get things done. The day society spends less time worrying about putting criminals away and more time helping them become productive members of society we'll be in a better place. Satan has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Unless you consider GW Bush a Satanist, in which case I'll blame him, the little weasel.

Uhm, no. Once again, the fallacy of the Fundamentalist. "Our side, or Hell's side". Wow. How totally and 100% ignorant. Let me clue you in on a lttle secret....

Wicca, Buddhist, Zen, Unitarian, Jewish, Muslim.... It doesn't matter. They're not going to hell because they don't follow your faith. Deal with it, continue hiding your head in the sand and pretending the devil is making people worship false gods, watever. You really need a reality check, though.

Well, I have to say all of your statements were pretty damn bold there Gangrel. You can't really tell anybody who is and is not going to hell. As for Hillbilly, (man, what a great screen name for MAP to argue in the religion section with, makes you think "well, this guy is going to be a religious nut job" doesn't it? He started out with -100 points in this thread just for the name) he isn't stating anything that Christians don't believe.

From what I have read in the Bible, if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour (which should inspire change in your normal life and make you want to do good, if it doesn't you're a liar in my opinion) then you ARE going to go to hell. That's part of the religious view and you can't really take it away just because it irks you. But of course, if I am saying things that are not true from what is written in the Bible, please correct me. (I really should be drawing up scripture to prove what I'm saying too shouldn't I?)

Now, before you go all off on me accussing me of being a fundie or anything like that, I do not believe "With us or against us" is something that should be used by us. The Bible also says that we do not bring ourselves to God, he brings us to him. So being a man, saying "you are with us, or against us" . . . . well, I don't believe we have a right to say that. The Bible says God judges the heart, something none of us can do well. Which is why I think it is written to "treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself." It doesn't say "Treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself only if he follows your exact beliefs." I believe that sometimes people get real caught up in what they believe that they feel it is their responsibility to force it on others, which is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for something I've had on me that I've wanted to say about the originall post and I don't think this view has been represented either, if it has then I am sorry. "God can't be perfect because he has anger and jeleousy which leads to bad things." Well, from what I can see, people are judging God on a scale. This scale also applies to man. If a man gets angry or jeleous, bad things can occur due to this, thus it is a "sin" . . . correct? So if that happens to man, then it must be the same for God, he must abide by the same laws.

Well I have to say, that really doesn't hold weight. God is supposed to be God. He is not a man thus he cannot be judged by the laws of man. Think about it, God is supposed to have created EVERYTHING. Know what that means? It means everything belongs to him, and he is "sharing" it with us. Now, think of it this way. You have a bunch of land, it is yours. You hire some people to work it, and they abuse it. They have orgies and sacrafices on it and burn everything (yeah I know I am going a bit extreme with this . . . .) and well, are destroying it. Wouldn't that get you upset? Wouldn't being angry about that be "righteous" anger, being you have a 'right'eous reason to be angry? I believe that is the same way God's anger is supposed to be portrayed as. (Of course you have other questions about it as well, such as "but killing children isn't right," but I can go on quite a bit about that as well and my post is already huge.)

As for his jeleousy, I'm not quite sure. I can imagine a father being jeleous of another man because his child is looking to the other man, when the other man is doing the wrong stuff? That wouldn't be the wrong type of jeleousy would it? I'm not quite sure, I haven't really looked up on it all that much.

Anywho . . . . you can't judge the Christian God by our laws of morality. He is supposed to be above the law. Not fair? Well . . . he's God, is it fair to judge an omnipotent being by our laws? Does doing that even make sense?

Davey Bones

27-Aug-2006, 04:06 PM

Well, I have to say all of your statements were pretty damn bold there Gangrel. You can't really tell anybody who is and is not going to hell. As for Hillbilly...[sic] he isn't stating anything that Christians don't believe.

That's right, neither can hillbilly say who is and isn't going to hell. I might not be as bold is she weren't so narrow-minded.

From what I have read in the Bible, if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour (which should inspire change in your normal life and make you want to do good, if it doesn't you're a liar in my opinion) then you ARE going to go to hell. That's part of the religious view and you can't really take it away just because it irks you.

It's not a matter of what does and does not irk me as much as it's a matter of "intelligent discussion" versus "ignorant declarations". We ended up on the whole "satan" thing because hillbilly made some very ignorant comments. And let's face it, it's people like hillbilly who give Christians a bad name.

Brisks

27-Aug-2006, 04:37 PM

That's right, neither can hillbilly say who is and isn't going to hell. I might not be as bold is she weren't so narrow-minded.

It's not a matter of what does and does not irk me as much as it's a matter of "intelligent discussion" versus "ignorant declarations". We ended up on the whole "satan" thing because hillbilly made some very ignorant comments. And let's face it, it's people like hillbilly who give Christians a bad name.

Actually it's just Chrisitians laughable stories about higher powers that give you a bad name. I once told a christian I beleived there was a dog that watched over us and was all powerful she laughed and said I was stupid, I then told her she beleived the same thing all i had done was reverse the word god.

She didn't get it because she quite stupid, but the point i'm making is that I dont see why my idea would be considered any more stupid than hers, the only way I could see her beleiving in god is because she was brainwashed from a yong age too.

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 04:37 PM

That's right, neither can hillbilly say who is and isn't going to hell. I might not be as bold is she weren't so narrow-minded.

It's not a matter of what does and does not irk me as much as it's a matter of "intelligent discussion" versus "ignorant declarations". We ended up on the whole "satan" thing because hillbilly made some very ignorant comments. And let's face it, it's people like hillbilly who give Christians a bad name.

Hillbilly can say who is and isn't going to hell, just like you can say that none of them are going to hell. If they were going to hell, then you would look the fool. Both of you did the same thing, you both are saying who is and isn't going to hell. Only thing is, you don't look so much the bad guy because you're not condemning everyone to hell. (Hillbilly is a she?!)

I am at a loss for words for what I want to say about "people like her" as you put it. Now that I read over it, she has made JUST as bold statements as you have. : /. It reallly boils down to which each of you believe. People will take your side quicker because you're not condemning anybody to hell, and people will hate her for doing so. People don't like to be thought of as bad people you know, well . . . some people maybe, but not everyone.

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 04:41 PM

Davey Bones

27-Aug-2006, 06:22 PM

I am at a loss for words for what I want to say about "people like her" as you put it. Now that I read over it, she has made JUST as bold statements as you have. : /. It reallly boils down to which each of you believe. People will take your side quicker because you're not condemning anybody to hell, and people will hate her for doing so. People don't like to be thought of as bad people you know, well . . . some people maybe, but not everyone.

People take my side because I'm judging her on her commentary. People take my side because I don't assume everyone else is bad becasue they don't believe in the same things I do. My comments to hillbilly are based on what's been posted by hillbilly. I don't have a beef with Christians, just those who seem to think they're better than the rest of us BECAUSE they're Christian. I'm so over that :rolleyes:

Brisks

27-Aug-2006, 06:53 PM

You know, all I have for this is a :rolleyes:

Explain.

Taff

27-Aug-2006, 07:01 PM

I have to admit, I'm a little confused. Before reading this thread....I was absolutely 100% convinced that GangrelChilde was a Christian. Where did I get that idea? :confused:

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 07:28 PM

People take my side because I'm judging her on her commentary. People take my side because I don't assume everyone else is bad becasue they don't believe in the same things I do. My comments to hillbilly are based on what's been posted by hillbilly. I don't have a beef with Christians, just those who seem to think they're better than the rest of us BECAUSE they're Christian. I'm so over that :rolleyes:

I don't believe I have read her say that Christians are better people? I also don't believe she is telling everyone else they are bad because of what they believe? She IS stating her beliefs though. But as for her saying, "Christians are better people because they're Christian" . . . I haven't seen it. I also haven't read all of her posts so I may be wrong.

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 07:30 PM

Explain.

Your profile says your 15 and you were talking about a girl being manipulated while she was younger . . . . . . need I say more?

Blevunly

27-Aug-2006, 07:48 PM

Well I have to say, that really doesn't hold weight. God is supposed to be God. He is not a man thus he cannot be judged by the laws of man. Think about it, God is supposed to have created EVERYTHING. Know what that means? It means everything belongs to him, and he is "sharing" it with us. Now, think of it this way. You have a bunch of land, it is yours. You hire some people to work it, and they abuse it. They have orgies and sacrafices on it and burn everything (yeah I know I am going a bit extreme with this . . . .) and well, are destroying it. Wouldn't that get you upset? Wouldn't being angry about that be "righteous" anger, being you have a 'right'eous reason to be angry? I believe that is the same way God's anger is supposed to be portrayed as. (Of course you have other questions about it as well, such as "but killing children isn't right," but I can go on quite a bit about that as well and my post is already huge.)
[/QUOTE]

Ok your scenario is decent except the part where you say he hires people, which implies that people are given a choice whether or not to come live on his land and work for him. Now I don't know about you, but before my creation I wasn't asked if I wanted to be created and put through trials that could end me up in a nice hot place called Hell. So I think a better scenario would be he forces some people onto his land and tells them you will do what I say when I say it or I will kill you.

As for his jeleousy, I'm not quite sure. I can imagine a father being jeleous of another man because his child is looking to the other man, when the other man is doing the wrong stuff? That wouldn't be the wrong type of jeleousy would it? I'm not quite sure, I haven't really looked up on it all that much.

Agian your scenario is alittle off It would make more sense to say a father is jealous because his child is looking to the other man, who the father lets live in his house even though he knows he is a murder,drug dealer,etc. and then the father even lets his kid hang out with the other guy. What a great dad if we all had one as caring as that the world would just be so perfect.

Davey Bones

27-Aug-2006, 08:01 PM

I don't believe I have read her say that Christians are better people? I also don't believe she is telling everyone else they are bad because of what they believe? She IS stating her beliefs though. But as for her saying, "Christians are better people because they're Christian" . . . I haven't seen it. I also haven't read all of her posts so I may be wrong.

It's the underlying assumption of "We're going to Heaven and the rest of you are going to Hell". Seems pretty much a statement of "us versus them", and the implication that "us" is better than them is loud and clear as far as I'm concerned.

I have to admit, I'm a little confused. Before reading this thread....I was absolutely 100% convinced that GangrelChilde was a Christian. Where did I get that idea? :confused:

I have some Christian beliefs, but I'm a Unitarian, so I incorporate a lot of different beliefs into my worldview. Christian, Taoist, some pagan, etc.

I did spend a lot of time telling off HJS in some Christian thread, so that's probably where the thought came from; actually I've told off several folks around here for their narrow-mindedness and blatant disrespect for Christians. Some people consider Unitarians Christian others don't. We certainly aren't so arrogant to assume that the divine only saves a select few, though. And we are much more orthopraxic and much less orthodoxic and dogmatic than Christians.

As I noted earlier, our Hymnal contains meditative readings from Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, Buddhism, Paganism, Taoism, as well as literature and philosophy. You don't generally gravitate towards Unitarianism if you believe in the whole "my faith is the one true faith" party line. We respect the contributions of all the major world religions, philosophers, authors, and social activists to our spiritual growth.

Brisks

27-Aug-2006, 08:54 PM

Your profile says your 15 and you were talking about a girl being manipulated while she was younger . . . . . . need I say more?

I said she was most likely brought up a christian so she believes it, which is more than likely. She never had a choice of wether to beleive in god or not it was forced upon her. I'd bet big money her parents didn't say,

"Now honey I personally belive in god but you don't have to if you prefer another theory, I want you to make up your own mind"

They more than likely said

"Honey god exists, go say you prayes then we will go to church"

That is how religious beleifs are passed on and if parents allowed children to decide wether or not god exists for themselves then there would be a lot less christians in the world. I was brought up with a choice and when I was younger I did beleive in god but now I understand God existing in the way any religion describes him is impossible. That is what I was saying, and I don't see how my age should infulence the solidarity of my argument. Gottit?

Topher

27-Aug-2006, 08:57 PM

Because (1) Allah can't have a child, and (2) Allah can't share his throne.
How do you know either of this?

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 09:24 PM

Ok your scenario is decent except the part where you say he hires people, which implies that people are given a choice whether or not to come live on his land and work for him. Now I don't know about you, but before my creation I wasn't asked if I wanted to be created and put through trials that could end me up in a nice hot place called Hell. So I think a better scenario would be he forces some people onto his land and tells them you will do what I say when I say it or I will kill you.

.

Hmmmm. I'm having a problem answering this one. All I can come up with is that we don't have free will to the full extent as God has it. How can he ask us if we want to be created if we weren't already created? We only have free will to a certain extent. Does the potter ask the pot if it wants to be created? Or does the nail ask the blacksmith to make it a horse shoe? The pot will serve the purpose the potter made for it, and the nail what the blacksmith intended.

Now the difficult part of all this is the "god-like" stuff about us. "god-like" being once we are created, we can choose. A pot cannot choose to be a stove, nor a nail be anything other then a nail. Humans though, if we are "created," can become something entirely different then what we were intended for, thus the "anger" of God sometimes (in certain situations). And since we are supposed to be his creation to do his will (not so much his will in the terms of "I'm going to destroy you in the name of God!", more so as in "I was made to serve God and . . . . become a plasterer."), then him forcing us to "do this or that" is not really wrong if he made us.

We are "his" and he has a right to do what he wants with us does he not? Again, if the potter no longer sees a need for the pot, he can destroy it. God should not have to play by the moral laws that we have set for ourselves, or that he has set for us. If the potter makes a certain pot to hold water, and sells it for water, then it will be used for water. But if he decides to destroy it because it warps in time, then would it be wrong for him to do so? Again, this draws back to putting God on Man's level and scale of judging. The view of God should be that he created us; the creator can do as he pleases with the creation and no matter what it is, it cannot be wrong because of the fact that we are no more then a creation. We are the created, we are to be used, not to choose what we are to be used for.

Am I making any sense at all? I feel like I'm not saying what I want to say the right way, or that I am only capturing a glimpse of what I'm trying to say in my writing . . . sigh*

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 09:37 PM

That is how religious beleifs are passed on and if parents allowed children to decide wether or not god exists for themselves then there would be a lot less christians in the world. I was brought up with a choice and when I was younger I did beleive in god but now I understand God existing in the way any religion describes him is impossible. That is what I was saying, and I don't see how my age should infulence the solidarity of my argument. Gottit?

No, religious beliefs are not ALL passed on like that. What about the millions of people who conver to ANY religion (not just Christianity) later in life? How do you account for them? You are only 15, you haven't even made it through highschool. If you take the "higher up" classes you'll learn new ways of thinking that can completely change the way you think now, and then when you get to college, you will probably learn an entirely new way to think your first day there . . . . . . . .. To close the book on such a sensitive subject so early in life is pretty rash.

As for your age . . . it will affect your agrument tremendously as how it is viewed by anyone with common sense. Nobody is going to look to a young man for leadership and guidance . . . why, because he is in lack of experience. Age reveals experience (in most cases) which in turn gives a person's arguments more weight. You can hoop and holler all you want about it, but that's really just the way it is. Gottit?

Blevunly

27-Aug-2006, 10:08 PM

Hmmmm. I'm having a problem answering this one. All I can come up with is that we don't have free will to the full extent as God has it. How can he ask us if we want to be created if we weren't already created? We only have free will to a certain extent. Does the potter ask the pot if it wants to be created? Or does the nail ask the blacksmith to make it a horse shoe? The pot will serve the purpose the potter made for it, and the nail what the blacksmith intended.

Now the difficult part of all this is the "god-like" stuff about us. "god-like" being once we are created, we can choose. A pot cannot choose to be a stove, nor a nail be anything other then a nail. Humans though, if we are "created," can become something entirely different then what we were intended for, thus the "anger" of God sometimes (in certain situations). And since we are supposed to be his creation to do his will (not so much his will in the terms of "I'm going to destroy you in the name of God!", more so as in "I was made to serve God and . . . . become a plasterer."), then him forcing us to "do this or that" is not really wrong if he made us.

We are "his" and he has a right to do what he wants with us does he not? Again, if the potter no longer sees a need for the pot, he can destroy it. God should not have to play by the moral laws that we have set for ourselves, or that he has set for us. If the potter makes a certain pot to hold water, and sells it for water, then it will be used for water. But if he decides to destroy it because it warps in time, then would it be wrong for him to do so? Again, this draws back to putting God on Man's level and scale of judging. The view of God should be that he created us; the creator can do as he pleases with the creation and no matter what it is, it cannot be wrong because of the fact that we are no more then a creation. We are the created, we are to be used, not to choose what we are to be used for.

Am I making any sense at all? I feel like I'm not saying what I want to say the right way, or that I am only capturing a glimpse of what I'm trying to say in my writing . . . sigh*

I wasn't literally thinking he could ask us I was just using that to point out that we have been forced into a situation. But for God not to hold himself to the same standards as his people would make him a selfish tyrant. Also he never gives any reason to believe that he has his own standards that differ from the ones he gives man. I like the whole "we are his and he has the right to do what he wants with us" because it's true right now we are all doing exactly what he wants and theres no way we could ever stray from it, because he is all powerful and has drawn our paths at the beginning of time. When he created everything the way he wanted it thus everything happened the way he wanted it to.

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 10:13 PM

I wasn't literally thinking he could ask us I was just using that to point out that we have been forced into a situation. But for God not to hold himself to the same standards as his people would make him a selfish tyrant. Also he never gives any reason to believe that he has his own standards that differ from the ones he gives man. I like the whole "we are his and he has the right to do what he wants with us" because it's true right now we are all doing exactly what he wants and theres no way we could ever stray from it, because he is all powerful and has drawn our paths at the beginning of time. When he created everything the way he wanted it thus everything happened the way he wanted it to.

I still don't agree with this although I can't think of a way to explain why not other then saying that he's not a man, therefore he cannot be judged by man. I think a lot of our blasting of God has to do with our own jeleousy/anger, if not of God, then the idea of what God is supposed to represent.

Blevunly

27-Aug-2006, 10:21 PM

I still don't agree with this although I can't think of a way to explain why not other then saying that he's not a man, therefore he cannot be judged by man. I think a lot of our blasting of God has to do with our own jeleousy/anger, if not of God, then the idea of what God is supposed to represent.

Ok we know he's not a man, but why can't we judge him by man's standards that he gave man. He's never shown us any reason to believe that he has any different standards for himself. He never says these standards are for man and only man. So why not use the standards that he's shown us? And yes jealousy/anger are created by the idea of God (someone with more power than you telling you what to do).

Topher

27-Aug-2006, 10:27 PM

Well, I have to say all of your statements were pretty damn bold there Gangrel. You can't really tell anybody who is and is not going to hell.
In a sense, you right, no one can say categorically someone is or is not going to ‘hell’, however since there is no evidence for the ‘existence’ of hell in the first place, Gangrel is entirely justified in denouncing statements such as “your going to hell for not believing in x” (which technically is more correct as: “your going to an unproven hell for not believing in an unproven god” :rolleyes: ). There is no justification in making such statements, since there is no evidence to support it, but, one can justifiably reject the statement (or the concept altogether) due to the lack of evidence. So the two assertions are not on the same level. Gangrel is justified and I agree with him.

Well I have to say, that really doesn't hold weight. God is supposed to be God. He is not a man thus he cannot be judged by the laws of man. Think about it, God is supposed to have created EVERYTHING. Know what that means?
What it means is that no one can talk of any restrictions/limits of god. An omnipotent being would be responsible for the existence of any limit that limited it in the first place! Whatever "limit' you come up with would be a limit within the control of omnipotence.

All I can come up with is that we don't have free will to the full extent as God has it.
This is absurd. To have ‘free’will’ you need choice. Who would be responsible for the choices available to god….his older brother?

Or himself? If he is responsible for his own ‘choices’, and he necessarily is, then he doesn’t have free will does he.

I did spend a lot of time telling off HJS in some Christian thread, so that's probably where the thought came from; actually I've told off several folks around here for their narrow-mindedness and blatant disrespect for Christians.
I’m actually open to anything… as long as good evidence/reason/justification is presented with it… which leads to my second point: to you see asking people to prove what they are saying - asking for evidence, or alternatively pointing out a fallacy someone is making as being disrespectful?

Hapuka

27-Aug-2006, 10:36 PM

Sparkle

27-Aug-2006, 11:10 PM

In a sense, you right, no one can say categorically someone is or is not going to ‘hell’, however since there is no evidence for the ‘existence’ of hell in the first place, Gangrel is entirely justified in denouncing statements such as “your going to hell for not believing in x” (which technically is more correct as: “your going to an unproven hell for not believing in an unproven god” :rolleyes: ). There is no justification in making such statements, since there is no evidence to support it, but, one can justifiably reject the statement (or the concept altogether) due to the lack of evidence. So the two assertions are not on the same level. Gangrel is justified and I agree with him.

The rule has to apply the same way to everything. Hell cannot be disproven, neither can it be proven by any current standard.

What it means is that no one can talk of any restrictions/limits of god. An omnipotent being would be responsible for the existence of any limit that limited it in the first place! Whatever "limit' you come up with would be a limit within the control of omnipotence.

Are you just saying that you can't give restrictions to God? If you are, then I agree. But I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that if that's what you meant to say. If that is what you are saying though, that is also what I intended to say, as it applied to us anyways.

This is absurd. To have ‘free’will’ you need choice. Who would be responsible for the choices available to god….his older brother?

The chain of justification has to end somewhere doesn't it? One has to assume that God is justified by himself and his decisions only wouldn't they?

Or himself? If he is responsible for his own ‘choices’, and he necessarily is, then he doesn’t have free will does he.[/QUOTE}

How does he not have free will then? What is free will? The ability to have choice in what you want to do right? If there is another definition for it please let me know. We have responsibility for our own free will don't we (for the decisions we make), does that make us not have free will? I don't think I understand what you are getting at here, you may have to dumb it down for me.

[QUOTE]I’m actually open to anything… as long as good evidence/reason/justification is presented with it… which leads to my second point: to you see asking people to prove what they are saying - asking for evidence, or alternatively pointing out a fallacy someone is making as being disrespectful?

V Live long and prosper ;)

Gary

27-Aug-2006, 11:21 PM

I take it that you think christains are stupid. :D

Non christians always look at all the bad and stupid stuff that some christians did but never at the good stuff. Funny that. :cool:
That's just human nature, however much good you do it's easily outweighed by the bad. Imagine the most good a person can do, then imagine the worst they could do. If someone did both of those things, how would they be judged?

Mixitup

27-Aug-2006, 11:24 PM

. Hell cannot be disproven,

Catholic Church disagrees, no such thing as Hell now if you believe them.

Sparkle

28-Aug-2006, 12:26 AM

Catholic Church disagrees, no such thing as Hell now if you believe them.

Yeah umm . . . . you completely lost me there on that one :confused:

Topher

28-Aug-2006, 01:08 AM

Hell cannot be disproven, neither can it be proven by any current standard.
Well given that, one is justified in rejecting the concept of hell, but not in accepting it. Unless you believe propositions are true, until disproved, which is ridiculous.

Are you just saying that you can't give restrictions to God?
Yes.

If you are, then I agree. But I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that if that's what you meant to say. If that is what you are saying though, that is also what I intended to say, as it applied to us anyways
I’m saying god has no limits. Once this is declared you cannot say anything (meaningful) about this god. Why? We can only talk of things with a nature, an identity, a character etc, and something that has identity/nature/character necessarily has limits. It is an error to apply ontology to something which violates ontology, yet when people talk about god, they do exactly that!

The chain of justification has to end somewhere doesn't it?
Yes, god. If the chain goes higher than god, then this ‘god’ is neither omnipotent, nor a god!

How does he not have free will then? What is free will? The ability to have choice in what you want to do right?
On re-reading my post, I retract my statement. I got it the wrong way around.

My disagreement in your comment, that: ”we don't have free will to the full extent as God has it” is saying we have free will. God would have ‘free will’ since his ‘decisions’ would have no outside interference whatsoever. In fact, only an omnipotent god could possibly have free will. We on the other hand certainly don’t have free will…..

We have responsibility for our own free will don't we (for the decisions we make), does that make us not have free will?
Do you believe you always have control over your choices? That your choices are always your choice? So if for example a road is closed because of a car accident, the reason for your not going down the road is not due the accident and resulting road closure, but simply because you chose to go a different way?

See Socrastein’s thread: Determinism Logically Necessitated (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31552) on this issue.

Strafio

28-Aug-2006, 01:21 AM

"God can't be perfect because he has anger and jeleousy which leads to bad things." Well, from what I can see, people are judging God on a scale. This scale also applies to man. If a man gets angry or jeleous, bad things can occur due to this, thus it is a "sin" . . . correct? So if that happens to man, then it must be the same for God, he must abide by the same laws.

Well I have to say, that really doesn't hold weight. God is supposed to be God. He is not a man thus he cannot be judged by the laws of man. Think about it, God is supposed to have created EVERYTHING. Know what that means? It means everything belongs to him, and he is "sharing" it with us.
Yep. God is the man with the power. He can do whatever he wants.
However, Christians also claim that he is loving and morally perfect.
If you drop that claim then most of our arguments lose weight.
If you claim that God is loving and morally perfect then the God you describe must be loving and morally perfect for your description of God to mean anything.

The rule has to apply the same way to everything. Hell cannot be disproven, neither can it be proven by any current standard.
Again, if you believe God is loves a person then there's no way he'd have them suffer hell. To send a person to hell is to be more evil and sadistic than any person has ever been. Hell makes Auschwitz seem like a haven. If you believe that God is the most evil and sadistic being in the universe then I cannot argue against your belief in hell. If not, you have some explaining to do...

I’m actually open to anything… as long as good evidence/reason/justification is presented with it… which leads to my second point: to you see asking people to prove what they are saying - asking for evidence, or alternatively pointing out a fallacy someone is making as being disrespectful?
It's because of the word 'irrational'.
In philosophy is simply means that the position hasn't been reasoned logically.
In our everyday usage it implies that the person hasn't tried to reason at all.
So you could say that it's not 'irrational' to believe in 'irrational' things sometimes. (i.e. it's not everyday 'irrational' to put faith in philosophically 'irrational' beliefs)

So when you said that theism was irrational, it basically sounded like you were calling all theists stupid. That would've very been rude indeed! :eek:

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 01:22 AM

Hell cannot be disproven, neither can it be proven by any current standard.

if there is no way to prove something, that means there isn't a good reason to believe it, only a lunatic would say its alright to believe in something because you can't disprove it.

Strafio

28-Aug-2006, 01:25 AM

See Socrastein’s thread: Determinism Logically Necessitated (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31552) on this issue.
Soccy's only 19? :eek:
I had him pictured at atleast mid 20's!
He's pretty well read in philosophy considering I'd not even started on it at that age! :eek:

Brisks

28-Aug-2006, 02:02 AM

No, religious beliefs are not ALL passed on like that. What about the millions of people who conver to ANY religion (not just Christianity) later in life? How do you account for them? You are only 15, you haven't even made it through highschool. If you take the "higher up" classes you'll learn new ways of thinking that can completely change the way you think now, and then when you get to college, you will probably learn an entirely new way to think your first day there . . . . . . . .. To close the book on such a sensitive subject so early in life is pretty rash.

As for your age . . . it will affect your agrument tremendously as how it is viewed by anyone with common sense. Nobody is going to look to a young man for leadership and guidance . . . why, because he is in lack of experience. Age reveals experience (in most cases) which in turn gives a person's arguments more weight. You can hoop and holler all you want about it, but that's really just the way it is. Gottit?

There are not millions of people converting later in life that is why there is a huge decrease in religous people in developed countries. I already am taking "higher up" classes (why the hell did you put that in quotation marks?). i'm not quite sure where you got the leadership bit from but I am perfectly capable of deciding if I beleive in god the way it is protrayed by religions at 15. Also I seem to find that stupid people with no real argument often try to use age as ace card over other.

Lily

28-Aug-2006, 02:32 AM

Brisks - looks like its a case of the Brisk-pot calling the kettle stupid.

Brisks

28-Aug-2006, 02:43 AM

Brisks - looks like its a case of the Brisk-pot calling the kettle stupid.

I'm not calling anyone stupid i'm merely suggesting that people who turn to age as an argument for why there right tend to be stupid. if you like I can get my grandad to come post on here and hes 75 so that meens hes even smarter than all of you, right?

Thelistmaker

28-Aug-2006, 03:56 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for something I've had on me that I've wanted to say about the originall post and I don't think this view has been represented either, if it has then I am sorry. "God can't be perfect because he has anger and jeleousy which leads to bad things." Well, from what I can see, people are judging God on a scale. This scale also applies to man. If a man gets angry or jeleous, bad things can occur due to this, thus it is a "sin" . . . correct? So if that happens to man, then it must be the same for God, he must abide by the same laws.
I believe potatodemon was talking about the very nature of certain emotions not their effect. For instance it’s not enough to say we can’t judge God’s jealousy. You half to ask ‘what is this emotion called jealousy’.
Could a perfect all loving being display an emotions which is by definition the product of an overdeveloped ego.
It’s like asking could God go around pissing in swimming pools? Or does God eat human dung? Does God get Jealous?

meh...It depends on your view of God

Thelistmaker

28-Aug-2006, 04:12 AM

Brisks- I agree with you that maturity isn’t necessarily proportional to age

Hovind has grey hair and a PHD and he’s extremely spiritually retarded.

Pascal, inventor of Pascal’s wager was a leading authority on math at age 16.

I still think I was smarter than my RE teacher at age 15 :p

now I'm 19 and wounder whether I'm smarter than my proffesors :D (half kidding)

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 04:15 AM

Thelistmaker

28-Aug-2006, 04:22 AM

it doesn't depend on your view, this is simple, theres one acceptable view, if god makes laws, he too is bound by them. as a president would be to the laws of his nation, period, god breaks them, he shatters the concept, president breaks them, we can impeach him.
I’d say all powerful tyrant is an more appropriate analogy. He can be as hypocritical as he likes and no one can do a God dam thing. :D

Gary

28-Aug-2006, 09:12 AM

I’d say all powerful tyrant is an more appropriate analogy. He can be as hypocritical as he likes and no one can do a God dam thing. :D
He's a nice tyrant, as tyrants go.

He might make a lot of rules, but I haven't seen him enforce them once :)

Sparkle

28-Aug-2006, 09:58 AM

There are not millions of people converting later in life that is why there is a huge decrease in religous people in developed countries. I already am taking "higher up" classes (why the hell did you put that in quotation marks?). i'm not quite sure where you got the leadership bit from but I am perfectly capable of deciding if I beleive in god the way it is protrayed by religions at 15. Also I seem to find that stupid people with no real argument often try to use age as ace card over other.

*grumbles*

I decided to answer your post at 5:30 in the morning before I'm off to my classes in hopes that you don't walk around all in a huff. I put "higher up" classes as a use of sarcasm. That's what people call them around here sometimes, and I think it's a bit stupid : P. As for being dumb because I criticise your age, calm down man.

I'm not thwoing your argument to the side because of your age, I'm throwing your argument aside because it was . . . stupid. Then I looked at your age and said "well you know, I can't really discount the guy being he probably hasn't really exposed himself to anything, he made up his mind and has drawn the final conclusion." I wasn't saying I was right in any way (may I ask where you saw that?) and I wasn't telling you that you were wrong. Just that I don't believe you have enough experience to simply write off something that has been around for a looooong time, as do a lot of people (including myself).

I put the leadership bit in to give you an example of why it's harder for young people to get across well, and the lack of responsiblity (unless proven otherwise) they generally have. Thus why they are rarely in leadership positions. It was just an example of the way of thinking I was trying to portray, nothing else.

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 10:04 AM

What about the millions of people who conver to ANY religion (not just Christianity) later in life? How do you account for them?

Nearer you get to the end of your life the more you want to believe that there is something else afterwards.

Brisks

28-Aug-2006, 12:55 PM

Sparkle maybe you should just come up with a proper argument rather than just saying mines stupid then immediatly moving onto my age. I've come up with an argument and have presented it, all you have done is say my argument then make various comments on my age. Your looking like a bit of an idiot in my eyes.

Lots of love Brisks.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 02:09 PM

I believe potatodemon was talking about the very nature of certain emotions not their effect. For instance it’s not enough to say we can’t judge God’s jealousy. You half to ask ‘what is this emotion called jealousy’.
Could a perfect all loving being display an emotions which is by definition the product of an overdeveloped ego.

Well perhaps you should look at God's jealousy like this. Has anyone here ever known or been close to someone with a drug or alcohol addiction? When the addict repeatedly puts drugs/booze ahead of everything else in life, including those who love the addict the most, isn't there some jealousy there? The addict's loved ones just don't understand why they keep going back to something that is destroying their life in every way. Why can't they put the bottle down and just leave it alone and put the people and things in life that are truly important ahead of the drug? That is how God's jealousy is. He loves every person that has ever lived so much, yet He can't understand why people reject Him, His words, and the plan He has for their life. And the destroyer of all our lives is sin. But God will help you with your sin problem if people everywhere would just turn to Him and let Him.

By the way I'm sure that it is rather easy to call the comments of a self-proclaimed "hillbilly" ignorant, isn't it? I mean after all, aren't "hillbillies" un-educated and out of touch with the world. Becareful not to stereotype please.

Gary

28-Aug-2006, 02:22 PM

By the way I'm sure that it is rather easy to call the comments of a self-proclaimed "hillbilly" ignorant, isn't it? I mean after all, aren't "hillbillies" un-educated and out of touch with the world. Becareful not to stereotype please.
Can you please quote where someone has stereotyped you because of your internet name? From what I see you've been stereotyped from your comments, not who people think you are from a name.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 02:51 PM

Can you please quote where someone has stereotyped you because of your internet name? From what I see you've been stereotyped from your comments, not who people think you are from a name.

No one has said I am an ignorant hillbilly. However, my comments are labeled ignorant because I tell people they are going to a hell that I can't prove exists. And honestly I think that people are saying such things because my beliefs are based on faith and not scientific evidence. Ignorance is bliss and I am sure that is how many people view my stance. But that works both ways; ignorance of a coming judgement also allows people to blissfully live their lives with disregard for God.

Gary

28-Aug-2006, 03:16 PM

By the way I'm sure that it is rather easy to call the comments of a self-proclaimed "hillbilly" ignorant, isn't it? I mean after all, aren't "hillbillies" un-educated and out of touch with the world. Becareful not to stereotype please.
No one has said I am an ignorant hillbilly. However, my comments are labeled ignorant because I tell people they are going to a hell that I can't prove exists. And honestly I think that people are saying such things because my beliefs are based on faith and not scientific evidence. Ignorance is bliss and I am sure that is how many people view my stance. But that works both ways; ignorance of a coming judgement also allows people to blissfully live their lives with disregard for God.
So would it be fair to say that you couldn't back up your belief that people were stereotyping you with any proof, and instead blamed peoples objections to your lack of proof in your beliefs?

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 03:55 PM

You're either ignorant or trolling, i really can't decide which.

How am I supposed to take your calling me ignorant? Perhaps my name has nothing to do with it and you aren't stereotyping. Either way I don't appreciate the insult. My choice to put my faith in God that is real to me and whose teachings I believe in does not make me ignorant. Sharing my beliefs which upset you does not make me a troll.

Gary

28-Aug-2006, 04:12 PM

How am I supposed to take your calling me ignorant? Perhaps my name has nothing to do with it and you aren't stereotyping. Either way I don't appreciate the insult. My choice to put my faith in God that is real to me and whose teachings I believe in does not make me ignorant. Sharing my beliefs which upset you does not make me a troll.
You can be ignorant whatever your beliefs. Pushing your ideologies while ignoring what anyone else has to say makes you look ignorant.

I'm sure I could have argued with you, drawn parallels with people devoting their lives to a book and on other people who brand people on first impressions, but I really don't think it would have made any difference.

I stick by my original statement, which was based on your opinion that anyone not on God's side was on Satan's side.

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 04:15 PM

There is a difference between sharing your beliefs and telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are going straight to hell, not passing GO and not collecting £200.

After all you don't know you believe ( are you related to Carrie's Mother?)

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 04:26 PM

There is a difference between sharing your beliefs and telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are going straight to hell, not passing GO and not collecting £200.

Are you suggesting that I should pipe down and comprimise on the issue? Cave in and support this lie from the devil that everyone will escape hell? I personally do wish that everyone will escape hell. I do. But I also believe God's word which says the vast majority of humanity will miss heaven. I don't want that to happen. But me wishing and hoping that it won't happen doesn't mean that isn't the way it is going to be. If I thought there was any other way then I would be right there with you saying believe whatever you like and it will all be OK in the end.

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 04:29 PM

Your preaching at us and not to us.
You claim to fully understand Jesus's message and don't listen to other peoples opinions with an open mind, hard sell doesn't work in religion that well any more. Chill out and sacrifice a few virgins with me :Angel: Do you know any?

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 04:32 PM

Your preaching at us and not to us.

You certainly have the choice to listen or not.

Gary

28-Aug-2006, 04:34 PM

Are you suggesting that I should pipe down and comprimise on the issue? Cave in and support this lie from the devil that everyone will escape hell? I personally do wish that everyone will escape hell. I do. But I also believe God's word which says the vast majority of humanity will miss heaven. I don't want that to happen. But me wishing and hoping that it won't happen doesn't mean that isn't the way it is going to be. If I thought there was any other way then I would be right there with you saying believe whatever you like and it will all be OK in the end.
What I was suggesting was that you explain why you think people are all going to hell, and why their points aren't as valid as yours. So far a lot of your responses have been accusations that people are going to hell, with little reasoning for the foundation of your faith.

I'm just suggesting that if you want to change peoples minds, then helping them to understand is a better path than outright accusations.

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 04:41 PM

You certainly have the choice to listen or not.

Yes I do, but you're the one trying to convert people to the one true way, and quite frankly God's judgment in sales-people is very poor.
Frightening people into doing something may(doubt it though) get bums on pews, but how many in the 21st century would 'believe?'

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 04:55 PM

What I was suggesting was that you explain why you think people are all going to hell, and why their points aren't as valid as yours. So far a lot of your responses have been accusations that people are going to hell, with little reasoning for the foundation of your faith.

I'm just suggesting that if you want to change peoples minds, then helping them to understand is a better path than outright accusations.

Fair enough. But I must warn you, generally my conversations don't get very far for one reason. I believe that the Bible is God's word. There is no error in the Bible and everything in it is relavent to us today. I realize that most people do not believe in the divinity of the Bible; I've heard that numerous times on this forum. Bascially, my beliefs are based on "the Bible said it so it must be true."

Having said that, you're probably thinking what a weak position. Well, to me, somethings are deeper than what is taught in a classroom. My reasoning for being a Christian is not because I have seen God or heard His voice. But I have seen Him work in my life and in the lives of people around me.

Also, back to the God's side/Satan's side thing. Is refusing to make the decision to follow Jesus not the same thing as deciding not to follow Him? Either way you look at it, it is a rejection. A very difficult thing about Christianity is that sins of commission are just as serious as the sins of ommission.

Davey Bones

28-Aug-2006, 05:08 PM

Gary

28-Aug-2006, 05:14 PM

Fair enough. But I must warn you, generally my conversations don't get very far for one reason. I believe that the Bible is God's word. There is no error in the Bible and everything in it is relavent to us today. I realize that most people do not believe in the divinity of the Bible; I've heard that numerous times on this forum. Bascially, my beliefs are based on "the Bible said it so it must be true."
I feel much more open to debate now, whatever I think of your personal beliefs. I would be interested to know what you think about the contradictions in the bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html), especially since you take it so literally.

Having said that, you're probably thinking what a weak position. Well, to me, somethings are deeper than what is taught in a classroom. My reasoning for being a Christian is not because I have seen God or heard His voice. But I have seen Him work in my life and in the lives of people around me.
I shouldn't worry too much, I honestly believe religion is taken far too seriously by far too many people anyway. To live your life by any single book, let alone one written X thousands of years ago just seems crazy to me. Not that I get too upset about it, everyone's entitled to their beliefs, it's when they start affecting others with them I usually get involved.

Also, back to the God's side/Satan's side thing. Is refusing to make the decision to follow Jesus not the same thing as deciding not to follow Him? Either way you look at it, it is a rejection. A very difficult thing about Christianity is that sins of commission are just as serious as the sins of ommission.
You're drawing a line, my God or Satan. There's a lot of grey area there, other denominations for starters and especially when you consider that plenty of other religions have an equivalent deity to Satan. It also indicates that without your exact knowledge of God, anyone else is a Satan worshipper.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 05:25 PM

Yes I do, but you're the one trying to convert people to the one true way, and quite frankly God's judgment in sales-people is very poor.
Frightening people into doing something may(doubt it though) get bums on pews, but how many in the 21st century would 'believe?'

Nice to know how superior you see yourself to others. I believed in the 21st century; saw a man accept Jesus yesterday in fact. Careful, you are on the verge of stereotyping again with your implication toward "modern" believers.

Brisks

28-Aug-2006, 05:28 PM

Well perhaps you should look at God's jealousy like this. Has anyone here ever known or been close to someone with a drug or alcohol addiction? When the addict repeatedly puts drugs/booze ahead of everything else in life, including those who love the addict the most, isn't there some jealousy there? The addict's loved ones just don't understand why they keep going back to something that is destroying their life in every way. Why can't they put the bottle down and just leave it alone and put the people and things in life that are truly important ahead of the drug? That is how God's jealousy is. He loves every person that has ever lived so much, yet He can't understand why people reject Him, His words, and the plan He has for their life. And the destroyer of all our lives is sin. But God will help you with your sin problem if people everywhere would just turn to Him and let Him.

By the way I'm sure that it is rather easy to call the comments of a self-proclaimed "hillbilly" ignorant, isn't it? I mean after all, aren't "hillbillies" un-educated and out of touch with the world. Becareful not to stereotype please.

Isn't Envy one of the 7 deadly sins? So God is a sinner?

Gary

28-Aug-2006, 05:32 PM

Isn't Envy one of the 10 deadly sins? So God is a sinner?
Do you mean the seven deadly sins, or have they added some more?

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 05:34 PM

8.
9.
10. Can you guess what it is yet?

Brisks

28-Aug-2006, 05:37 PM

Do you mean the seven deadly sins, or have they added some more?

You know what I meen.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 05:37 PM

It doesn't matter to me that you believe the way you do in terms of divine inspiration and the presence of the divine in your life. I accept that, hell, I've experienced it myself. What really bugs me about people like you is the fact that you DEMAND we all accept YOUR experiences, and then when someone suggests something else, you do everything in your power to invalidate those experiences with talk of Hell and Satan.

Your faith doesn't make you ignorant. Your hypocrisy does. You can't demand we respect your faith and then in the same breath tell those of us who do not believe the way you do that we're all going to Hell or uder the influence of some mythical tempter. Maybe when you come to understand that the Divine shows itself in different ways to different people, and accept their experiences as valid, we'll show you a bit of respect. Your hellfire and brimstone schtick is tired.

Have you experienced Jesus, Gangrel? If I have come across as trying to invalidate your past experiences then that wasn't my intention. I want you to be open minded enough to try God's way.

I think you may have used the wrong word. Hypocrisy is not doing what you say others should do or doing the very thing you speak out against. You make it sound like I have to agree with you or I don't respect you. I can have respect for you as a person yet think and believe differently can't I? I have no doubt that you hold to your beliefs as strongly as I do. The only problem is you don't like what I say and you think you can start calling me a hypocrite because of it. By the way, are you judging that I am a hypocrite? Sounds like it to me.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 05:47 PM

Not that I get too upset about it, everyone's entitled to their beliefs, it's when they start affecting others with them I usually get involved.

What do you mean by this? Affecting others or offending others?

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 05:55 PM

Isn't Envy one of the 7 deadly sins? So God is a sinner?

Envy is one of the 7 deadly sins. But think about the things that people are envious over: a nice car, a pretty wife/handsome husband, good looks for themselves, intelligence, money, etc, etc. In the grand scheme of things, these items are petty and everyone can be happy without them whether we think it or not. Envy also consumes one's mind. They become so focused on acheiving or acquiring the above such things that they can't think of anything else. Also just looked up "jealous" and it is defined as being intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. See the difference?

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 06:05 PM

Nice to know how superior you see yourself to others. I believed in the 21st century; saw a man accept Jesus yesterday in fact. Careful, you are on the verge of stereotyping again with your implication toward "modern" believers.

I think your the one feeling superior, after all your place in heaven is assured.
Me I'm going straight to hell, just as well - I can't play a harp

Strafio

28-Aug-2006, 06:09 PM

Hillbillly, I think people are getting wound up because you're just repeating that they're going to burn in hell without 'justifying' your belief. When we want to convince somebody that something is true we use reasoning and evidence to bring them round.
E.g. the prosecution gathers evidence to prove that the defendent is guilty.

The attempt to explain God's jealousy was in the right spirit.
Infact, I think I'll answer it now! :)

Well perhaps you should look at God's jealousy like this. Has anyone here ever known or been close to someone with a drug or alcohol addiction? When the addict repeatedly puts drugs/booze ahead of everything else in life, including those who love the addict the most, isn't there some jealousy there? The addict's loved ones just don't understand why they keep going back to something that is destroying their life in every way. Why can't they put the bottle down and just leave it alone and put the people and things in life that are truly important ahead of the drug? That is how God's jealousy is.
Hmmm...
The jealousy part of that isn't righteous - it's our selfish side.
The 'righteous' part of caring about drug abuse is caring about how it's hurting the abuser. You might give a drug abuser harsh measures but it would ultimately be for their good, to help them in the long run.
I can understand God giving tempory punishments to discipline us, but burning people in hell is just sadistic. Would you have drug addicts suffer in concentration camps?

He loves every person that has ever lived so much, yet He can't understand why people reject Him, His words, and the plan He has for their life. And the destroyer of all our lives is sin. But God will help you with your sin problem if people everywhere would just turn to Him and let Him.
Another thing I've got to disagree with you is on God's understanding.
You know how you can misunderstand people if you don't know them - take something they didn't mean the wrong way? God shouldn't have this problem with us. God understands our vices better than we do. He'll understand why people don't believe in them. He'd know what to do to convince them and change their minds, help them see the truth. The fact that not everyone knows 'the truth' clearly means that God doesn't tell everyone but lets us guess blindly.

You say it yourself, you only believe all this because you take the Bible to be the errorless word of God. But why do you believe that? Why the Bible rather than the Quran? I see two possibilities:

Either you correctly guess the right holy book.
(so this would mean that pleasing God would be a matter of blind luck. It would be like playing the lottery - you cannot know for sure that you are right.)
or there are reasons for choosing other all other possible truths.
If this is the case then share these reasons. Who knows, you might save a couple of us! ;)

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 06:24 PM

my comments are labeled ignorant because I tell people they are going to a hell that I can't prove exists. And honestly I think that people are saying such things because my beliefs are based on faith and not scientific evidence.

aww jee, ya think? i meani know we're assholse for asking for validity and all. :rolleyes: thats what happens in every other area of conversation, if someone says something that they can't prove in anyway is the absolute truth, we tend to dismiss them out of hand. and yeah, if you base something on your desire for it to be true, as opposed to facts, you're also though of as ignorant. wanting it to be true, doesn't make it so. I have seen no one dismiss you because you claim to be a hillbilly, more so because you sound like a fanatical evangelist only a footstep away from violence.

see, stuff like this here, it makes you ignorant yes, becasue you can't validate that its real. so to say so in such a supreme certainty is blind.
My choice to put my faith in God that is real to me and whose teachings I believe in does not make me ignorant.

there it is AGAIN, these are the kind of statements that make you look ignorant. you can't prove theres a devil, and you sure as hell have no idea what he wants.
Cave in and support this lie from the devil that everyone will escape hell?

yes, there are more errors in the bible than i care to count, however i could give you a link to a page listing them. perhaps print them out and glue them to the fridge? So there we have it, thats why all this sounds so insane, you're basing your beliefs on a wilfully ignorant position. i understand now, you're beliefs are based on the 100% validity of a book that has talking animals, zombies and global floods. :rolleyes:
There is no error in the Bible and everything in it is relavent to us today. Bascially, my beliefs are based on "the Bible said it so it must be true."

Have you experienced Jesus, Gangrel? If I have come across as trying to invalidate your past experiences then that wasn't my intention. I want you to be open minded enough to try God's way.

Have you experienced Jesus, Gangrel?

gangrel is gay. so by you taking the bible in such a valid sense, you're obligated to hate him. :rolleyes: (even though hes a good guy)
also i think you convenietly looked over without responding to comaboy's list of the biblical contradictions (damn you beat me to it!) so feel free to do that.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 06:42 PM

gangrel is gay. so by you taking the bible in such a valid sense, you're obligated to hate him. :rolleyes: (even though hes a good guy)

Oh, No No. You have overstepped your bounds to assume that I hate Gangrel because he is gay and I am evangelical. That is very unfair and you need to take it back. In fact why did you even have to bring that up? I don't know him or you. I disagree with you on the religion forum but that is hardly hating someone.

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 06:44 PM

Will he get into YOUR heaven though?

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 06:45 PM

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 06:51 PM

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

God is good to all who ask Him to be merciful, to all those that appreciate his mercies. Tekkengod, do you appreciate the fact that God has been merciful enough to you to have a normal functioning mind and body, to (I presume) grow up in home where you are loved, allowed to be born in this nation where you are free to speak as you wish? Think of the alternative ways your life could be.

And evil people who curse God? Why wouldn't He dash them together? But alas, here we are at the beginning of the thread again and discussing God's anger. The verse in Jeremiah is actually proof that, yes, God does have enemies and that not all people are His children that he will allow to enter into His kingdom.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 06:55 PM

right, you called yourself an evangelist and under that title and the contents of your post its safe to assume that you hate him, or would be inclined to disagree strongly with homosexuality. and as to the rest of that post?

There is a big difference between hating someone for any reason and disagreeing with them. You are trying to put words in my mouth. You may think you have figured out evangelicals and are able to generalize about us, but you are dealing with me specifically at the moment and you are wrong.

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 07:01 PM

Sheyja

28-Aug-2006, 07:03 PM

Personally I think this whole argument can be nulled under the idea that is was man who wrote the bible, not any sort of 'God', so the traits applied aren't accuarte, but mearly what the men in power thought would be best.

Gary

28-Aug-2006, 07:04 PM

What do you mean by this? Affecting others or offending others?
I believe if you are offended you are affected. If your religion is the true religion there shouldn't be any need to push it on others if they don't want it.

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 07:11 PM

and i can show you passages of god casting out gays, point being, prove me wrong, prove to me that evangelists are not the scripture spouting lunatics you've portrayed yourself as.

Sparkle

28-Aug-2006, 07:35 PM

Actually it's just Chrisitians laughable stories about higher powers that give you a bad name. I once told a christian I beleived there was a dog that watched over us and was all powerful she laughed and said I was stupid, I then told her she beleived the same thing all i had done was reverse the word god.

She didn't get it because she quite stupid, but the point i'm making is that I dont see why my idea would be considered any more stupid than hers, the only way I could see her beleiving in god is because she was brainwashed from a yong age too.

Paraphrased: "I think all Christians stories are stupid because it talks about higher powers which I personally (redundant to add emphasis on YOUR personal belief) believe are stupid. I think it is the same as believing in a dog that watches over us. She didn't understand me because she is stupid and she's probably dumb because she was brainwashed."

Where is the reasoning other then what you believe? Where is the support, where is the homer and socrastine drawn out explanation of WHY you feel that way? Where is your ARGUMENT? There IS none. You threw something out there without backing it with anything worth wild. Get over yourself being young too, I'm not still stuck on it, and it's all you have going for you.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 08:02 PM

and i can show you passages of god casting out gays, point being, prove me wrong, prove to me that evangelists are not the scripture spouting lunatics you've portrayed yourself as.

Have you had a particularly rough day or something? You act as though someone said "God bless you" after a sneeze and it has set you off. God casted em out, but did I? How many times have you heard me spouting out scripture? It probably wouldn't do much good since most people find it to be a metaphor or just plain wrong.

Accusing me of hating gays when I never said the first thing about it on this thread or any other kind of makes you sound like the lunatic. Are you hoping to entrap me somehow by saying I hate Gangrel?

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 08:04 PM

Would he enter your God's heaven?

slipthejab

28-Aug-2006, 08:05 PM

Arguing about religion over the internet is liking winning the Special Olympics... even if you win... you're still retarded. ;)

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 08:06 PM

Would he enter your God's heaven?

Excuse me while I consult the dummies guide to living on it.

Not going to give you the pleasure of a response.

Sparkle

28-Aug-2006, 08:08 PM

Well given that, one is justified in rejecting the concept of hell, but not in accepting it. Unless you believe propositions are true, until disproved, which is ridiculous.

But believing that the proposition could be true if not proven is not.

I’m saying god has no limits. Once this is declared you cannot say anything (meaningful) about this god. Why? We can only talk of things with a nature, an identity, a character etc, and something that has identity/nature/character necessarily has limits. It is an error to apply ontology to something which violates ontology, yet when people talk about god, they do exactly that!

Weeeelllllll, you know I believe it says somewhere in that book called the Bible that we will never understand God? I think I may have come across it, and I think it may apply here?

Yes, god. If the chain goes higher than god, then this ‘god’ is neither omnipotent, nor a god!

Exactly.

My disagreement in your comment, that: ”we don't have free will to the full extent as God has it” is saying we have free will. God would have ‘free will’ since his ‘decisions’ would have no outside interference whatsoever. In fact, only an omnipotent god could possibly have free will. We on the other hand certainly don’t have free will…..

Which could also be described as us being "God like" but not God?

Do you believe you always have control over your choices? That your choices are always your choice? So if for example a road is closed because of a car accident, the reason for your not going down the road is not due the accident and resulting road closure, but simply because you chose to go a different way?

In light of my last statement, then no, I don't believe we are in complete control over all of our choices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to say something to Gangrelchild and anybody else getting on to Hillbilly about her beliefs. She isn't doing anything but preaching what she believes to be the truth. And she does it with complete surrender to it, being she is not going to change. It is not her trying to change all of you, but all of you trying to change her. All that is required of any of you is to simply ignore her, or tell her you do not agree with her. Whether or not she persists in berating you about it after you have told her you are no longer interested is a different story.

(I may be wrong with this due to reading and analyzing a poem called "she being Brand" . . . a poem about sex by E.E. Cummings [heh, isn't that great? A sex poem by cummings : P] and haven't had the time to read everything she and everyone else has said, but from what I have seen, it's not as bad as it is being made out to be.)

So all else I can really say is . . . . guys, grow some thicker skin and don't lose your composure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On God's jeleousy.

Jeleous as to dictionary.com . . . . . 1. jealous resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself.
2. mental uneasiness from suspicion or fear of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love or aims.
3. vigilance in maintaining or guarding something.
4. a jealous feeling, disposition, state, or mood.

I thought of this driving to the library from class. Imagine you start a big happy club (this is going to be dry, bare with me) and you want EVERYONE to be a part of your "happy" club . . . right. Well, there is another club called the "slightly happy" club and it really isn't even close to how great your club is. You want everyone to join your club but the requirements, although able to be accomplished by everybody, are pretty hard.

So naturally people go for the next best thing, the "slightly happy" club right? So this makes you 1. jealous resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself., right?

Let us also look at 3. vigilance in maintaining or guarding something.. Say you are protecting your happy club people from starting to be unhappy by giving them the "happy" things to do all the time. Then you would be maintaining and or gaurding your happy club would you not? Where is the wrong in any of this? Would you call any of this unmoral? Would any of this be a sin?

But then we have to touch on God's jeleousy sparking wars and stuff like that right? Well . . . . I don't know : P. We'll have to go by the definition of what Homer and I established the idea of God being, so he can't be wrong. (Oh I know you guys loved that explanation eh?)

- These are all my thoughts on the matter, they are inspired by some reading I have done, but mostly thinking about it in general. If it sounds completely dumb, stupid, or really dumb and stupid then please forgive me, but don't hesitate to call me out so I can think more on the matter :p

Sparkle

28-Aug-2006, 08:09 PM

Arguing about religion over the internet is liking winning the Special Olympics... even if you win... you're still retarded. ;)

:rolleyes: (a "lol" sort of :rolleyes: , not a "man I can't stand stupid people like this damnit!" kind of :rolleyes: )

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 08:13 PM

Have you had a particularly rough day or something? You act as though someone said "God bless you" after a sneeze and it has set you off. God casted em out, but did I? How many times have you heard me spouting out scripture? It probably wouldn't do much good since most people find it to be a metaphor or just plain wrong.

Accusing me of hating gays when I never said the first thing about it on this thread or any other kind of makes you sound like the lunatic. Are you hoping to entrap me somehow by saying I hate Gangrel?

why is it that everytime i challange you on something you tell me i'm angry or something of the like? you spouting scripture, a few. i didn't accuse you of hating gays i said you're obligated to if you take the bible to the literal and valid extent you do. you can't cherry pick. god cast them out, but you didnt? so you're a better person morally than god? i'd hope so but from your point of view how can that be?

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 08:17 PM

That's a beautiful quote from Slip there RATFL

Davey Bones

28-Aug-2006, 08:19 PM

Have you experienced Jesus, Gangrel? If I have come across as trying to invalidate your past experiences then that wasn't my intention. I want you to be open minded enough to try God's way.

I think you may have used the wrong word. Hypocrisy is not doing what you say others should do or doing the very thing you speak out against. You make it sound like I have to agree with you or I don't respect you. I can have respect for you as a person yet think and believe differently can't I? I have no doubt that you hold to your beliefs as strongly as I do. The only problem is you don't like what I say and you think you can start calling me a hypocrite because of it. By the way, are you judging that I am a hypocrite? Sounds like it to me.

No, I meant "hypocrite". You expect us to accept your assertions, yet without breaking a sweat, you demonized a Wiccan, said Muslims who don't accept Jesus are going to Hell, and in a roundabout way compared meditating on the readings of some of the greatest spiritual leaders today with Satanism (you never answered some of my earlier questions, instead going right into the slippery slope). You never once, until now, mentioned "respect for other's beliefs". So yeah, "hypocrite" is exactly the word I was looking for.

And yes, on a certain level I am judging you. One of the tenets of the Unitarians is a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Additionally, part of our tradition draws from both "wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual lives" as well as Judeo-Christian teachings, humanist teachings (such as science and philosophy), and teachings of earth-centered religions.

Just as you can say that without a doubt a Muslim who does not accept Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour is doomed to Hell, just as you can say the Wiccan who follows an Earth-based religion will go to Hell, which is casting judgment based on the tenets of your faith, so I can say that based on the teachings of my Church and the tenets of my faith, you are wanting.

Sparkle

28-Aug-2006, 08:28 PM

That's a beautiful quote from Slip there RATFL

Roaring at the floor loudly?

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 08:28 PM

why is it that everytime i challange you on something you tell me i'm angry or something of the like? you spouting scripture, a few. i didn't accuse you of hating gays i said you're obligated to if you take the bible to the literal and valid extent you do. you can't cherry pick. god cast them out, but you didnt? so you're a better person morally than god? i'd hope so but from your point of view how can that be?

I tell you that because you sound angry.

Obligated to hate gays? And now I am making myself out to be better than God? Um you are the one who is drastically twisting things here buddy. I don't hate gays; I don't know any gays, nor do hate or know Gangrel. So, there you go--I am not obligated to hate gays.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 08:31 PM

And yes, on a certain level I am judging you. One of the tenets of the Unitarians is a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Additionally, part of our tradition draws from both "wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual lives" as well as Judeo-Christian teachings, humanist teachings (such as science and philosophy), and teachings of earth-centered religions.

Just as you can say that without a doubt a Muslim who does not accept Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour is doomed to Hell, just as you can say the Wiccan who follows an Earth-based religion will go to Hell, which is casting judgment based on the tenets of your faith, so I can say that based on the teachings of my Church and the tenets of my faith, you are wanting.

Sometimes you've got to call it like you see it. Same goes for me.

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 08:33 PM

Roaring at the floor loudly?

oop's, not changing it now, this thread is about showing ignorance.

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 08:35 PM

I tell you that because you sound angry.

Obligated to hate gays? And now I am making myself out to be better than God? Um you are the one who is drastically twisting things here buddy. I don't hate gays; I don't know any gays, nor do hate or know Gangrel. So, there you go--I am not obligated to hate gays.
:rolleyes:

by the comparitive idea yeah, god cast them out, but you didn't, you said that, so you disagree with god there? that would affect your view dramatically. if you take the bible literally and to the level of validity you appear to, then its in the texts. do you disagree with the bible now too? uh oh, be careful, this is getting tricky isn't it. if you disagree you could be on your way to hell. :rolleyes:

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 08:54 PM

:rolleyes:

by the comparitive idea yeah, god cast them out, but you didn't, you said that, so you disagree with god there? that would affect your view dramatically. if you take the bible literally and to the level of validity you appear to, then its in the texts. do you disagree with the bible now too? uh oh, be careful, this is getting tricky isn't it. if you disagree you could be on your way to hell. :rolleyes:

First of all if you are referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah then that really isn't a matter of disagreeing. I believe that it happened, if that is what you mean. Do I think God should have destroyed those towns? Well He already did so it doesn't really matter what I think does it?

I believe that some natural disasters that occur in this world are God's judgement; He either causes things to happen or He does not prevent things from happening. Do I stand back and rejoice at the suffering of others? Heavens NO. Can I prevent or cause tsunamis and hurricanes? NO. Am I happy that the "evil" people got what they deserve? Absolutely not. And before you turn it around, tsunamis and hurricanes are not the hand of God, but completely explained by science aren't they?

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 09:01 PM

First of all if you are referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah then that really isn't a matter of disagreeing. I believe that it happened, if that is what you mean. Do I think God should have destroyed those towns? Well He already did so it doesn't really matter what I think does it?

I believe that some natural disasters that occur in this world are God's judgement; He either causes things to happen or He does not prevent things from happening. Do I stand back and rejoice at the suffering of others? Heavens NO. Can I prevent or cause tsunamis and hurricanes? NO. Am I happy that the "evil" people got what they deserve? Absolutely not. And before you turn it around, tsunamis and hurricanes are not the hand of God, but completely explained by science aren't they?

it matters alot, if you disagree with what he did, and can attribute it to a moral process then you're acknowlading hes not perfect.
in the 2nd paragraph you cherry pick first you say he either does or doesn't allow them to happen, then you say its not his fault, well which is it? surely katrina and the tsunami are not his fault? pick one, you can't have both. :rolleyes:

Taff

28-Aug-2006, 09:13 PM

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 09:14 PM

it matters alot, if you disagree with what he did, and can attribute it to a moral process then you're acknowlading hes not perfect.
in the 2nd paragraph you cherry pick first you say he either does or doesn't allow them to happen, then you say its not his fault, well which is it? surely katrina and the tsunami are not his fault? pick one, you can't have both. :rolleyes:

Some storms you (you being me, you, people every where) can't hold back.

hillbilly79

28-Aug-2006, 09:21 PM

If God could stop millions of children starving to death in Africa by....dropping food from the sky or something, then he would win an awful lot of new followers. And they would follow him not because of fear, as is too often the case now.
Not only that, but he would show himself to be an all-loving God.

If he is an all-loving God, then why doesn't he love humanity enough to show his presence to us, convert everyone to Christianity, and hence save the human race from burning in hell for eternity?

Because right now he doesn't seem very fond of our people. He seems more like a God of hate. :confused:

Of course, you could say "the Lord moves in mysterious ways" etc etc. But right now, there is no evidence that God loves us, if he exists.

There is a parable in Bible of a poor man who laid a the gates of rich man begging for scraps. Both die. In hell the rich man begs Abraham to send the beggar back to earth as a sign for his brothers who might believe and avoid such an awful place. Abraham's answer was that the brothers already had God's word and if they would not believe based on that, then a person returning from the dead would not cause them to believe either.

Point being if God did drop food from the sky you still probably wouldn't believe in Him and follow Him.

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 09:40 PM

There is a parable in Bible of a poor man who laid a the gates of rich man begging for scraps. Both die. In hell the rich man begs Abraham to send the beggar back to earth as a sign for his brothers who might believe and avoid such an awful place. Abraham's answer was that the brothers already had God's word and if they would not believe based on that, then a person returning from the dead would not cause them to believe either.

Point being if God did drop food from the sky you still probably wouldn't believe in Him and follow Him.

yes, if god dropped food from the sky and made himself known in an unfalsifiable way, i'd follow him.

Mixitup

28-Aug-2006, 09:42 PM

Me too. But the Christians would say that faith is the important part. 2000 years of thinking up excuses really helps.

tekkengod

28-Aug-2006, 09:46 PM

Me too. But the Christians would say that faith is the important part. 2000 years of thinking up excuses really helps.

ha, yeah it sure does. hell gimme 2000 years of an atheistic society and we'll have debunked this in every form.

Topher

28-Aug-2006, 11:19 PM

It's because of the word 'irrational'.
In philosophy is simply means that the position hasn't been reasoned logically.
Well it’s not my fault I’m correctly defining the word. If something is irrational, then it is irrational, and it see nothing wrong in highlighting this.

Davey Bones

29-Aug-2006, 02:01 AM

Sometimes you've got to call it like you see it. Same goes for me.

And at the end of the day, I have to wonder who is doing more for God... people like you or people like me. Let's compare... People like you who condemn others not really knowing anything about what they believe, or people like me who accept that the Divine reveals itself to different people in different ways. Hmmm... I wonder?

wrydolphin

29-Aug-2006, 03:34 AM

ha, yeah it sure does. hell gimme 2000 years of an atheistic society and we'll have debunked this in every form.
2000 years of atheistic society will only prove that people are always the same. You lay a lot of the blame on religion that should squarely go on the heads of humans and humans alone. Which probably makes you seem sadder, more bitter and less informed then you really are. The only thing you will debunk is your pet theory that all that is ill with the world stems from institutionalized (or non istitutionalized for that matter) religion.

tekkengod

29-Aug-2006, 04:47 AM

2000 years of atheistic society will only prove that people are always the same. You lay a lot of the blame on religion that should squarely go on the heads of humans and humans alone. Which probably makes you seem sadder, more bitter and less informed then you really are. The only thing you will debunk is your pet theory that all that is ill with the world stems from institutionalized (or non istitutionalized for that matter) religion.

maybe it would, it'd be nice to have the opportunity to find out.
do i blame everything on religion? i don't even think i blame most things on religion, i will attribute perpetuation of myth and the irrationality that leads to the current terrorist based warfare though. but it sure would be nice to have that opportunity. 2000 years of atheistic research and progression of knowladge, 2000 years of if need be reverting to broken bs arguments and failsafe excuses, man, we'd have this world by the balls too.

Strafio

29-Aug-2006, 01:54 PM

Well it’s not my fault I’m correctly defining the word. If something is irrational, then it is irrational, and it see nothing wrong in highlighting this.
Lol! I wasn't blaming you! :)
It's just when you (correctly or not) say something is irrational in the philosophical sense, the same sentence is insulting the target's ability to reason when taken in the everyday sense. I was just highlighting where the annoyance and fustration was coming from.

If Gangrel had known exactly what you meant by 'reason' and 'irrational' then he would've agreed with you, that religious faith is based on faith. He thought that you were calling faith irrational in the everyday sense, and that's just not true. Extreme fundamentalist faith might be (and when I say extreme, I mean more extreme than anyone in this forum), but certainly not moderate faith.

Davey Bones

29-Aug-2006, 02:54 PM

If Gangrel had known exactly what you meant by 'reason' and 'irrational' then he would've agreed with you, that religious faith is based on faith. He thought that you were calling faith irrational in the everyday sense, and that's just not true. Extreme fundamentalist faith might be (and when I say extreme, I mean more extreme than anyone in this forum), but certainly not moderate faith.

Hey, keep me out of this part of the discussion, thanks. Been there, done that, not interested in closing another thread over what constitutes "logic" and the definitions of certain words. My feelings on certain opinions are quite clear, so please don't speak on my behalf, Strafio, thanks.

Strafio

29-Aug-2006, 03:22 PM

Didn't mean to drag you into another argument.
Just noting to Homer that there's a difference in what he meant to say, using terminology in the philosophical sense, and what people read - interpreting words in the everyday sense. That was why people found what he said insulting.

Davey Bones

29-Aug-2006, 03:33 PM

Topher

29-Aug-2006, 10:22 PM

However, my comments are labeled ignorant because I tell people they are going to a hell that I can't prove exists. And honestly I think that people are saying such things because my beliefs are based on faith and not scientific evidence.
Faith is by definition irrational, so it follows the beliefs held on faith will to be irrational.

Here’s a tip: before you try to preach your claims to us, you should present good argument to support the source of your claims.

Are you suggesting that I should pipe down and comprimise on the issue? Cave in and support this lie from the devil that everyone will escape hell?
Evidence please.

How do you know the devil said this?
How do you know the devil exists?
How do you know anything about him (or the bible) is accurate?
Can you explain why God allows the devil to exist? The devil is fallen angel right…God being omniscient would have know that the angel would fall, yet he created the angel knowing what would have happened.

There is no error in the Bible.
Bascially, my beliefs are based on "the Bible said it so it must be true."
Leviticus:
18:22 Homosexual acts are an abomination to God.
20:13 If a man has sex with another man, kill them both.
If you are consistent in your view that “there is no error in the Bible” and "the Bible said it so it must be true." you would agree with those two Bible quotes. Otherwise your special pleading. If you don’t agree that gay sex should result in death, or that homosexuality is an abomination, you contradict your prior two statements.

Strafio

30-Aug-2006, 12:20 AM

There's also "how it's said". Even more important that "what is said". :p
Aye! He probably has the sweetest tone of voice that just doesn't come through with the typing! :D

Homer, Hillbilly has already admitted that she assumes from the start that the Bible is God's word without error and she wouldn't know how to convince someone of that. I don't think she has any problem with her beliefs being 'irrational'. If that's such a bad thing, perhaps you should convince her why.

I say 'if' because irrational beliefs aren't necessarily a bad thing. There's often good pragmatic reasons for having them. (although Hillbilly refuses any kind of pragmatism for hers! :D)

Davey Bones

30-Aug-2006, 01:57 AM

Oh good God, here we go again. The know-it-all 20 year old philosophers versus the adult fundamentalist Christians, none of whom are nearly as smart as they claim to be. Thanks, Strafio. Didn't we do this dance already. And here we go again! :woo: :bang:

tekkengod

30-Aug-2006, 02:08 AM

this isn't complicated, if its based on an irrational concept, then its an irrational belief ok? how is that in any way confusing?

I say 'if' because irrational beliefs aren't necessarily a bad thing. There's often good pragmatic reasons for having them

WHAT?! its a horrible thing, because they're then often passed on to other people, and we then build a culture of ignorance.
have yet to see a good one presented. perhaps you've got one? :confused:

hillbilly79

30-Aug-2006, 01:36 PM

Faith is by definition irrational, so it follows the beliefs held on faith will to be irrational.

Here’s a tip: before you try to preach your claims to us, you should present good argument to support the source of your claims.

Evidence please.

How do you know the devil said this?
How do you know the devil exists?
How do you know anything about him (or the bible) is accurate?
Can you explain why God allows the devil to exist? The devil is fallen angel right…God being omniscient would have know that the angel would fall, yet he created the angel knowing what would have happened.

If you are consistent in your view that “there is no error in the Bible” and "the Bible said it so it must be true." you would agree with those two Bible quotes. Otherwise your special pleading. If you don’t agree that gay sex should result in death, or that homosexuality is an abomination, you contradict your prior two statements.

I am used to being called irrational at this point and as Strafio says that doesn't bother me.

As for your questions on the devil, I could show you in the Bible but you dismiss the Bible so what good would it do?

All sin results in death regardless of what it is. That is why no one lives forever: The wages of sin is death.

Su lin

30-Aug-2006, 01:43 PM

I am used to being called irrational at this point and as Strafio says that doesn't bother me.

As for your questions on the devil, I could show you in the Bible but you dismiss the Bible so what good would it do?

All sin results in death regardless of what it is. That is why no one lives forever: The wages of sin is death.

I think the fact the people dont live forever is more down to science and the human body than being sinful!

hillbilly79

30-Aug-2006, 02:00 PM

I say 'if' because irrational beliefs aren't necessarily a bad thing. There's often good pragmatic reasons for having them. (although Hillbilly refuses any kind of pragmatism for hers! :D)

Want something practical? How's this: Following Biblical teachings (hopefully) keeps me out of trouble and challenges me to be a selfless person. Neither of which is possible without help from God.

CanuckMA

30-Aug-2006, 05:50 PM

Want something practical? How's this: Following Biblical teachings (hopefully) keeps me out of trouble and challenges me to be a selfless person. Neither of which is possible without help from God.

So it is your contention that all non-Xtians are selfish criminals?

Sparkle

30-Aug-2006, 05:54 PM

So it is your contention that all non-Xtians are selfish criminals?

Want something practical? How's this: Following Biblical teachings (hopefully) keeps me out of trouble and challenges me to be a selfless person. Neither of which is possible without help from God.

Yeah . . . way to try and fuel the fire there buddy? Even with the last sentence without her re-establishing that she is talking about herself, it is still pretty obvious she is talking about herself.

You know, this is getting to be like a bunch of 10 year olds ganging up on the one person who doesn't agree with them. It may have started different, the bashing may have held weight before . . . . but really guys . . . . . .

tekkengod

30-Aug-2006, 06:10 PM

Want something practical? How's this: Following Biblical teachings (hopefully) keeps me out of trouble and challenges me to be a selfless person. Neither of which is possible without help from God.

see people, as i have said amillion times, religion is the crutch for these people. atleast she admits it.

Mixitup

30-Aug-2006, 06:41 PM

see people, as i have said amillion times, religion is the crutch for these people. atleast she admits it.

Most if not all Christians believe God is their crutch, that's the idea though. It is not a bad thing in times of trouble to turn to their God, better than many other crutches. :Angel:

tekkengod

30-Aug-2006, 07:09 PM

Most if not all Christians believe God is their crutch, that's the idea though. It is not a bad thing in times of trouble to turn to their God, better than many other crutches. :Angel:

yeah, but alot of them will tell you otherwise, yeah, its a bad thing, makes fo weak people in my opinion. how easy would life be if we could all just say "God did it" "i'm 9 million dollars in debt and my husband's banging my sister but god loves yay!" i've met people like that, it makes for weak, people.

Topher

30-Aug-2006, 08:33 PM

Homer, Hillbilly has already admitted that she assumes from the start that the Bible is God's word without error and she wouldn't know how to convince someone of that.
Yet she refused to say whether a gay person would be allowed in heaven or not. According to the Bible, gay people who have gay sex should be dead.

So she is now has a dilemma, agree to the above pathetic idea, or admit she is inconstant in her belief in the authenticity of the Bible and essentially special pleading.

I say 'if' because irrational beliefs aren't necessarily a bad thing. There's often good pragmatic reasons for having them.
This is an oxymoron. Give me an example.

Topher

30-Aug-2006, 08:37 PM

Oh good God, here we go again. The know-it-all 20 year old philosophers versus the adult fundamentalist Christians, none of whom are nearly as smart as they claim to be.
Age is irrelevant.

Socrastein is younger than many of the people in these conversations, yet he can and frequently does completely outshine them in rational conversation.

Mixitup

30-Aug-2006, 08:40 PM

Yet she refused to say whether a gay person would be allowed in heaven or not. According to the Bible, gay people who have gay sex should be dead.

.

What does the bible say about srtraight people who have gay sex?

Topher

30-Aug-2006, 08:43 PM

hillbilly79,

Care to comment on the Bible view on homosexuality. Do you agree with it?

Topher

30-Aug-2006, 08:47 PM

Want something practical? How's this: Following Biblical teachings (hopefully) keeps me out of trouble and challenges me to be a selfless person. Neither of which is possible without help from God.
If believing stop you from commiting murder or some other kind of crime, then please, keep believing! ;)

Topher

30-Aug-2006, 08:49 PM

What does the bible say about srtraight people who have gay sex?
I believe the bible doesn't specify straight or gay, it just says homosexuality is an abomination and that people who have gay sex should be killed.

Hapuka

30-Aug-2006, 09:49 PM

Hillbilly79 it makes me sad when you judge people. It is not right. God is the judge of this world not you. For you to judge people is wrong. You cant say that a gay person is going to hell or not. A lot of what you say from the bible is old testament. Jesus blesses and forgive those who come before him, including gay people. All sin is equal in the eyes of god. Mabey you should learn to be more open minded. Jesus said it is the sick that need a doctor not the well. Jesus helps those people every day. Hang out with gay people you might learn a thing or two. It helps you to become more humble and more like Jesus. http://www.gaychristian.net/

Strafio

30-Aug-2006, 10:27 PM

Hapuka... Hillbilly hasn't said anything about homosexuals yet.
She just believes that all people who haven't asked Jesus for forgiveness burn in hell. No exceptions for gay people! ;)

Want something practical? How's this: Following Biblical teachings (hopefully) keeps me out of trouble and challenges me to be a selfless person. Neither of which is possible without help from God.
That's a good start. I'd say that's a very good reason to be a Christian.
However, most religious/social philosophies will offer a similar thing so it's not a reason to choose Christianity over other beliefs.

The reason why I said you don't care for practicalities is because you didn't care that your belief that all non-Christians burn in hell causes all the bad effects of controversy, divisiveness, it can cause psychological problems, it has been used to justify horrible things - the Spannish Inquisition invented some of the cruelest torture techniques believing that no matter what pain they put this person through, if it brought them to Jesus then it saved them from Hell which would be even worse.

So the belief in Hell is as unpractical as it comes.
(i.e. you believe it because you're certain it's true rather than because you think it's good for you.)

TG and Homer: I have some basic ideas on pragmatic reasons for holding moderately irrational beliefs. However, I should work on them a bit and come back to them in another topic.