Why not? What is he waiting for?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Why not? What is he waiting for?
What if the true test is to ignore the claims of the religious about heaven and to sin enough to be sent to hell in order to try to convert the people in hell?
But you have not criticized other religions at all, you have downright rejected them. There's a difference. Criticism, debate amount to self-improvement, because there is room for doubt. What you have done is preach. There is no discussion here, all you've done is make your stand clear where others have expressed doubt.
And I am not sure you understand what tolerance means either. Tolerance requires acceptance of others who don't agree with you. You can't have a moral authority of those who are different from you. Tolerance, as you put it, is not about looking into others' eyes and saying, "you poor soul, you God can't save you", it is about acknowledging others' right to their faith. In fact when you say tolerance is about saying people who believe otherwise are wrong, I don't know if there's a bigger oxymoron.
And thank you for your kind concern but you don't have to pray for me. Although I am not a religious person, I like people of faith. They value things in life that are not just materialistic, are their center of attention is not them but their faith. Those are excellent qualities. My whole family is deeply religious. They're not Christians and from what I've learned from you I am thankful for that. But where I come from, each faith respects each other, and learns from each other. I can't remember the last time we had any sort of religious debate or a conflict. Some Hindu Gods are been accepted as Buddhist Gods and vice versa. But that has not diluted the fervor of either religion. Our State is secular for people of all religions and a Christmas or Christians would be treated no different than most important Hindu festival although Christians form around 4 percent of population. I have very rarely heard people being judged or ridiculed on the name of their religion in my society including the non-believers. Coming from such religious background, having very limited idea about your faith, I am quite taken aback by the things that you say which I hope is understandable to you but to put it bluntly, if you are a representative of Christian ideas, I don't like your faith.
Good, Stanzin. It is better that you know what my faith is and that you dislike it than you mistake it to be like those religions you were brought up with.
As Dawkins said, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Although this works less well when Hindus are involved of course.
Last edited:
I like the way the term "Humanist" is being used as a negative term.
Damn those critical thinker who demand evidence.
Damn those critical thinker who demand evidence.
Maybe I missed it as the past 20 pages or so contain dozens of essay length posts from you, but as a former atheist, what was the spark for you to be born again? What happened to make you lose your skepticism of religion and become one of the most forthright Christians I have ever come across? I'm genuinely interested as, being atheist myself, I can't imagine anything happening to me that would make me believe in what i consider ancient mythology.
What I find strange in Herman is his unquestioned adoption of the scripture. As @Wibble implies, the texts aren't an end to themselves but are mere vehicles to guide our morality and values for us to be better humans. If one is religious then one can take the idea of God from it and the value system preached as the guide to God which if leads to good character then its even better. I still believe that religion can have important functions in our society as in religion be a moral and spiritual guide in what is a deeply materialistic society. But to unabashedly accept the scripture even when there are elements in it which are as he says thoroughly non-humanist is just wrong. Even if Bible was the word of God, common sense would suggest it has to adapted to be inclusive of people of other beliefs.
IMO: Religions is about answering 1 questions for most of us
I.E. What happens after we die?
I.E. What happens after we die?
That is an easy one. Nothing apart from being buried/cremated/decomposing.
Herman, I think the problem with what you believe is that you believe in God but assume that he maintains the status quo. God hasn't necessarily gone to sleep since the death of his son, God is merciful and he sees all doesn't he? Perhaps, hopefully he continues to think about the subject, anyway, as I said, the voting is not in yet.
The trouble is that we all think we are right, the muslims think only they have the answer, jews too. Each sect of the christian faith, even yours has diverged and here we have you thinking that only you have all the answers. Do you have no friends or colleagues that belong to other religions? Do you know that they will not be saved? How can you want them not to be? We can all hope for better than we fear.
I have to admit that some of the terminology you use, talking of people who despise God seems a bit unusual, which of the religions we've been discussing despise God?
Dawkins is a fool to think someone is an an atheist for each god they don't believe in. Atheism, which comes from the Greek atheos, meaning without god, can never be used to describe someone who has God at the very centre of their worldview. Those with a faith in God cannot be viewed as atheists in any sense of the word. They certainly aren't without god and they don't live as though there isn't a god.
Only believing in one God to the exclusion of all the others doesn't make somebody an atheist with regard to those gods. That doesn't even make sense when part of the reason for strong rejection of other gods is because they're incompatible with the one believed in. It has nothing to do with atheism, but again, it has more to do with the exclusivity of truth. Dawkins, being a very poor ***********, doesn't know what he's talking about.
Oates, it seems like the Biblical position sounds unusual to you.
You can't see he clear parallel with you thinking Thor and Valhalla is a load of made-up nonsense and us thinking the same of your god and heaven?
I've given a few of the reasons for my faith in Christ but it seems like you're asking what led me to the place where I was able to even consider the Biblical claims, or those of any other religion? I'll let you answer before I give my response. I don't want to misinterpret your question. I am happy to answer that question if it is the one you're asking.
God needs Satan to corrupt and punish the wicked, otherwise he'd be doing it, and that would clash with the whole "isn't he so loving and benevolent" bullshit. But even so, any God that allows Satan is still complicit in his actions. Satan isn't a rebel, because his narrative is essential and needed, his supposed actions are predestined, much like Judas's.
I can't believe I'm arguing the concept of the fecking devil. Idiots.
I can't believe I'm arguing the concept of the fecking devil. Idiots.
Last edited:
I can see the similarity in a lack of belief, yes, but it's just a tautology if all you're saying is that we're all unbelievers of the things we don't believe in. It has no connection to the positive or negative understanding of atheism. You should answer a similar question. Can you not see the absurdity of trying to cast somebody with God at the very centre of their worldview as atheist in some way? Can you not see the logical contradiction there?
Well done on completely missing Dawkins' point, which has nothing to do with the semantics of the word atheist. The point is, obviously, that you stand in the exact same relation to all the other possible gods you could believe in as we stand in relation to yours.
Then tell your infallible pope to stop using terms incorrectly and to stop dealing in tautologies.
Well I'll tell you what, just as an example Herman, this phraseology; - "I am afraid the Father is too jealous for the honour and glory of his Son to ever change his mind" - it's just not a text from the bible, but there are texts that state that God is not a jealous God aren't there Herman?
You see, your posts are full of your interpretations, possibly your church's but God is perfectly and consistently moral, however he isn't eternally consistent when judging his people, he leaves room for mercy - I wonder whether that can be backed up by evidence from the bible if you know what I mean.
In any case, it's just a hope I have, I don't know about you but do you have any friends who belong to other religions, even atheists and agnostics who you realise will never become christians and yet you can accept that they will go to Hell?
Sure, I'll tell him to dumb things down for you the next time I see him.
Dear oh dear, man. Pathetic.
Someone who believes the bible to be literally true is insulting an atheist as believing someone to be infallible. We're through the looking glass people.
Exodus 20:4-6 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
My whole family doesn't know Christ, oates. I don't hope for anything less than Christ for them.
It's as though your purpose on the caf is to bring the level of conversation down in every thread you visit.
As opposed to you calling Roman Catholicism "the harlot church"?
To be fair, as much as I think Herman's a loon, if you're going to be religious, you might as well be a literalist. Otherwise what are you actually believeing in? Your own version of someone elses fiction? Which may be more paletable, but is still another fiction removed from the original. You're basically just making up your own morals, like a normal person, but adding in a God that doesn't fit for convenience.
In a weird way, I have some small vestige of respect for people who go full on nutty religious. Those who choose to disregard half the stuff are having their cake and eating it.
Such a shit God. Your dad screwed up, so you, your children, your children's children, and your children's children's children shall suffer.
That's where you're wrong, Wibbs! We return to the cosmos, becoming one with everything. I need to get on with creating that new religion I've been thinking of all these years.
Yeah sure, I'm just pointing out the irony in him mockingly calling Dawkins infallible.
Well since you are quoting the Old Testament where it states his steadfast love to his people, the jews, why would you think that his steadfast love stopped Herman? I have to admit that that is an interesting version of the text but the question remains. Can you find any examples of God showing eternal consistency in applying mercy to his people?
So you've not answered the question also about how you would feel about your friends, and family going to Hell.
Weirdly enough, I feel the same way....... on certain days.
Based on the descriptions in Revelation 17 and the history of the Roman Catholic Church and its practices to this date.
How can you take seriously the idea that there is an all powerful creator who is also subject to the human emotion of jealousy?
It's utterly ridiculous.
Indeed.
Pointing to revelations is circular logic. You aren't going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
I don't need any convincing in the evils of the Catholic Church, I just don't think someone who calls it "the harlot church" can then complain about the level of debate.
No, the point is, in contrast to the steadfast love God shows those who love him, his wrath is continually over those who hate him, from generation to generation and there is also a sense in which your cultural upbringing has a consequence, yes. We all know that to be true. If a father is a scarlet, unrepentant sinner, then there are consequences for his sons/daughters.
So you admit that this statement does not apply towards towards those who worship him?
Love is jealous. It's not the strictly human jealousy you're thinking of which is the tendency to covet things you shouldn't, which comes from pride. I should have what my neighbour has, etc.