Religion, what's the point?

[oates]

What a silly question. What you describe there is deism. Well, deism plus a set of optional and idiosyncratic beliefs. Supermarket religion in other words.

That has nothing to do with christianity. Unfortunately for him and anyone else who declares himself a christian, he doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing beliefs as if they were groceries. Christianity entails certain beliefs(that are well known, that's the nature of the so called revealed truth), you either believe in them or you don't. There's no wiggle room.

The main problem with this is that if I take what you say here as your understanding of what a christian is and what he believes then I am afraid you have as much understanding as I do of cosmology.

To be a Christian is to be "Christ-like" to be a "Christ-One" and we believe that Christ (who is a documented historical person who was crucified") taught a very simple tenet, one that even I can get a grip of and that was to "Love one another", no, not in the romantic sense but to cherish other humans as he did, to treat other people more or less how you would want to be treated. So most of the time I hope I succeed in not coming across as rude, arrogant, condescending but actually try to put into practice his teaching. Christ said "a new message I give unto you" which was to try and be a better human being and forget all that Old Testament Fire and Brimstone eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, sacrifice your eldest son stuff that was easy.

So I can't appreciate how you feel about my response about the two things are equal because I look at it from my point of view. All you really succeed in doing is discouraging me from trying to look at things from your point of view.

We could argue all day about theism and deism and I could try and remember some theology from my childhood but I suppose that I have to realise that this in reality is a thread for back slapping atheists who in all truth really do come across a lot of the time like snarling hyenas. Let me leave you to it.

 

[MichaelS]

It isn't know yet, probably it was created from nothing and is very likely that we will never know it.

Anyway Science will try to find the answer.



Are you mad? No-one created him, he existed from the beginning of time, even earlier.

How can something can from nothing? That really is as illogical as the god solution. And yes I'm aware the books with the titles a "A Universe of from nothing", but what they describe is not really nothing.

And no, I'm not of the opinion that God did it, I just don't believe there was absolutely nothing at all, and then there was suddenly something that iniated the big bang which caused all we see and are.

 

[Revan]

How can something can from nothing? That really is as illogical as the god solution. And yes I'm aware the books with the titles a "A Universe of from nothing", but what they describe is not really nothing.

And no, I'm not of the opinion that God did it, I just don't believe there was absolutely nothing at all, and then there was suddenly something that iniated the big bang which caused all we see and are.

As I expained earlier even now it's quite possible that something (Dark Energy) is creating from nothing. How? I don't have a clue. So, I imagine it could have been the same during the Big Bang, which I agree that is completely a wild guess.

 

[Moonwalker]

The main problem with this is that if I take what you say here as your understanding of what a christian is and what he believes then I am afraid you have as much understanding as I do of cosmology.

I know you don't like the idea of other people claiming they know things about you that you never talked about yourself. It's seems incredibly presumptuous and condescending. I'm sorry to say though, that has nothing to do with my arrogance and your demure. This is the baggage that you saddle yourself with. It comes with the territory. When I say I'm an atheist I'm really not saying anything about myself, other than the fact that I don't believe in the supernatural. My fellow atheists in this thread all seem to be liberals of some sort for instance. I don't share most of their political views. We could be as far a part from each other as people can be ideologically, morally, and still be on the same side of this argument. You don't have that luxury, your morals come from one book.

This is an unfortunate(for you) fact, but it's an unalterable one, that your position commits you whether you like it or not to certain beliefs. So it's not a level playing field. If you claim you're a christian then I already know much about you. If I say I'm an atheist, that doesn't entail any particular belief, besides the obvious one.

Jesus rose from the dead, he healed leprosy, walked on water, turned it into wine, among other things. He brought us the word of god, and sacrificed himself for our sins. We must accept him as our lord and savior or perish in the eternal fire. You have to believe all this, and more if you're a christian. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe in and which parts you don't. Either it's the word of god or it isn't. It's really that simple.
Now very often you'll encounter people who'll say "Well, I don't believe in all of that! I'm not silly." Well that's fine, if you're gonna take that route, but as I said earlier, that's supermarket religion. You're not really christian then.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. -John 14:6"

Was this the word of 'god in the flesh' as he calls himself? This is not an optional belief for a christian.

The only salvation comes through Christ. All of us 'infidels' in this thread are are bound for the eternal fire. Again this is something you have to believe if you're a christian. It also happens to be arrogance of the most abject kind. It is an irreconcilable difference between our positions, and no amount of would be 'pudeur' and humbleness on your part can correct that.

You're entangled in this problem, no matter how friendly, forgiving, and loving you want to come across as.

 

[Bebe]

What a silly question. What you describe there is deism. Well, deism plus a set of optional and idiosyncratic beliefs. Supermarket religion in other words.

That has nothing to do with christianity. Unfortunately for him and anyone else who declares himself a christian, he doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing beliefs as if they were groceries. Christianity entails certain beliefs(that are well known, that's the nature of the so called revealed truth), you either believe in them or you don't. There's no wiggle room.

There absolutely is wiggle room. Hence the bazillion different churches. His relationship with and interpretation of God is unique in the same way every individual is unique. No two people will read the same words and take exactly the same meaning from those words. Once again, who are you to decide what he believes? There is a significant difference in what you call "supermarket religion" and the differences of interpretation within religion.

 

[oates]

I know you don't like the idea of other people claiming they know things about you that you never talked about yourself. It's seems incredibly presumptuous and condescending. I'm sorry to say though, that has nothing to do with my arrogance and your demure. This is the baggage that you saddle yourself with. It comes with the territory. When I say I'm an atheist I'm really not saying anything about myself, other than the fact that I don't believe in the supernatural. My fellow atheists in this thread all seem to be liberals of some sort for instance. I don't share most of their political views. We could be as far a part from each other as people can be ideologically, morally, and still be on the same side of this argument. You don't have that luxury, your morals come from one book.

This is an unfortunate(for you) fact, but it's an unalterable one, that your position commits you whether you like it or not to certain beliefs. So it's not a level playing field. If you claim you're a christian then I already know much about you. If I say I'm an atheist, that doesn't entail any particular belief, besides the obvious one.

Jesus rose from the dead, he healed leprosy, walked on water, turned it into wine, among other things. He brought us the word of god, and sacrificed himself for our sins. We must accept him as our lord and savior or perish in the eternal fire. You have to believe all this, and more if you're a christian. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe in and which parts you don't. Either it's the word of god or it isn't. It's really that simple.
Now very often you'll encounter people who'll say "Well, I don't believe in all of that! I'm not silly." Well that's fine, if you're gonna take that route, but as I said earlier, that's supermarket religion. You're not really christian then.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. -John 14:6"

Was this the word of 'god in the flesh' as he calls himself? This is not an optional belief for a christian.

The only salvation comes through Christ. All of us 'infidels' in this thread are are bound for the eternal fire. Again this is something you have to believe if you're a christian. It also happens to be arrogance of the most abject kind. It is an irreconcilable difference between our positions, and no amount of would be 'pudeur' and humbleness on your part can correct that.

You're entangled in this problem, no matter how friendly, forgiving, and loving you want to come across as.

I'm afraid that all your post says to me is that you like to proclaim how much you know about someone when you know nothing at all about me or any other christians personal beliefs.

 

[Moonwalker]

I'm afraid that all your post says to me is that you like to proclaim how much you know about someone when you know nothing at all about me or any other christians personal beliefs.

It should be a simple task for you to rectify that then.

Which of those beliefs do you not hold?

Do you think I'm heading for eternal damnation as an infidel?

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

There absolutely is wiggle room. Hence the bazillion different churches. His relationship with and interpretation of God is unique in the same way every individual is unique. No two people will read the same words and take exactly the same meaning from those words. Once again, who are you to decide what he believes? There is a significant difference in what you call "supermarket religion" and the differences of interpretation within religion.

He is questioning the validity of 'God's will through the prism of my own experience, thoughts and feelings'.

It seems that God is unique to the vast majority of theists, when he can't be, why would he communicate his message through his prophets, to be set in stone in a sacred text, for that message to be reinterpreted by any individual who wishes to do so?

 

[Revan]

There absolutely is wiggle room. Hence the bazillion different churches. His relationship with and interpretation of God is unique in the same way every individual is unique. No two people will read the same words and take exactly the same meaning from those words. Once again, who are you to decide what he believes? There is a significant difference in what you call "supermarket religion" and the differences of interpretation within religion.

But aren't there in Holy Books things clear? Things that are right, things that are wrong? Things you must do, things you must not do?

Here I agree with moonwalker, that theists don't have the confort of selecting what they want to believe and what not (especially Muslims since they claim that Quran hasn't been changed and it's the word of God, I think that Jewish says the same about Torah but I am not sure). While Christians are in a little more comfortable position, since The New Testament is not claimed to be the direct word of God, but more some people telling Jesus's tales. Anyway the rules are pretty clear on it too, and I don't think that there is room for selection.

 

[oates]

It should be a simple task for you to rectify that then.

Which of those beliefs do you not hold?

Do you think I'm heading for eternal damnation as an infidel?

No I don't believe you are heading for eternal fire as an "Infidel". I believe the interpretation of "Hell" as a place of fire and Satan's imps poking you eternally with their roasting forks to have been a device. I believe "Hell" to merely be a place or dimension where God is not.

That was the assertion of yours that prompted my previous reply. As you know so much about some of the things Jesus did I can agree that in those cases I believe them also.

 

[oates]

He is questioning the validity of 'God's will through the prism of my own experience, thoughts and feelings'.

It seems that God is unique to the vast majority of theists, when he can't be, why would he communicate his message through his prophets, to be set in stone in a sacred text, for that message to be reinterpreted by any individual who wishes to do so?

It's not been set in stone though has it? It has been changed and altered since probably the times of Constantine and consequently I believe that Christians today have to question and decide for themselves where the truth is, almost like having theories if you like.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

It's not been set in stone though has it? It has been changed and altered since probably the times of Constantine and consequently I believe that Christians today have to question and decide for themselves where the truth is, almost like having theories if you like.

The text of the Koran is set in stone, apparently. It was never Jesus's intention for the text to be abused either. Besides the 'God is God + me' dynamic is universal, regardless of religion or denomination within a religion. It is a part of the psychology of faith, you observe it with the vast majority of religious folk that you meet.

Does the Bible state an allowance for personal 'wiggle room' or interpretation at any point?

 

[Eboue]

I would pay good money to see a theological debate between Jake, Omar and Raven.

 

[Bebe]

Well for instance in the example of the Quran, it says at one point to hunt down and kill infidels wherever they are found. At another point it says if you kill one person it is as if you've killed all of humanity. So here then we are told a thing is good, and bad at the same time. So what is a Muslim supposed to make of this?

Imo there are many different interpretations of these seemingly absolute rules. You can of course just pick one (see Al qaeda) or the other. You can say these are contradictory statements and thus clearly not divine, and disregard the religion. You can say these commands came in different contexts, and it is the situation that defines which to follow. My point here is that within a seemingly absolute or unchanging maxim there can be many different meanings. It is all based on the individual.

 

[Bebe]

Sorry, that last post is in response to Revan. I can't edit posts from the tapatalk app it seems.

 

[oates]

The text of the Koran is set in stone, apparently. It was never Jesus's intention for the text to be abused either. Besides the 'God is God + me' dynamic is universal, regardless of religion or denomination within a religion. It is a part of the psychology of faith, you observe it with the vast majority of religious folk that you meet.

Does the Bible state an allowance for personal 'wiggle room' or interpretation at any point?

I'm almost certain that Christ didn't intend the crusaders to invade the Holy Land and occupy Jerusalem and murder Muslims but apparently they were following what they were being taught from the Bible and from their priests. Should I believe the same as them?

I'm aware that there are many other gospels which have not been included in the Bible but date from pretty much a similar time, a bit earlier, the same, a bit later and many of them differ, however many of them contain the same message that Jesus taught.

I think that you really do have to pick and choose 2,000 years later and judge for yourself whether the modern day Bible and multi faiths really teach a loving Christ's message in all cases. I'm not a member or fan of organised religion.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

I think that you really do have to pick and choose 2,000 years later and judge for yourself whether the modern day Bible and multi faiths really teach a loving Christ's message in all cases. I'm not a member or fan of organised religion.

In essence Oates - I am saying that religion is total bollocks, flawed at every avenue, alleyway and cul de sac.

 

[Moonwalker]

No I don't believe you are heading for eternal fire as an "Infidel". I believe the interpretation of "Hell" as a place of fire and Satan's imps poking you eternally with their roasting forks to have been a device. I believe "Hell" to merely be a place or dimension where God is not.

The Bible is not as descriptive of hell as Dante was, but that's not to say that it's an optional belief. 'The fire that never shall be quenched', Gehenna is referenced countless times.


Matthew 5:22: "....whoever shall say, "You fool," shall be guilty enough to go into the, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 5:29: "....it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 5:30: "....better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 10:28: "....rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 18:9: "It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than with two eyes to be thrown into the, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 23:15: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you... make one proselyte...twice as much a child of 'Gehenna' as yourselves."
Matthew 23:33, to the Pharisees: "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you to escape the sentence of, 'Gehenna'?"
Mark 9:43: "It is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into, 'Gehenna,' into the unquenchable fire."
Mark 9:45: "It is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into, 'Gehenna.'"
Mark 9:47: "It is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into, 'Gehenna.'"
Luke 12:5: "....fear the One who, after He has killed has authority to cast into, 'Gehenna;' yes, I tell you, fear Him."
James 3:6: "And the tongue is a fire,...and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by, 'Gehenna.'"

I'm very pleased to learn that you don't believe in it, I'm just gonna ask on what authority do you not?

 

[oates]

In essence Oates - I am saying that religion is total bollocks, flawed at every avenue, alleyway and cul de sac.

I think organised religion has been deliberately flawed from almost pretty much every angle, at almost every opportunity for personal gain or control.

However, Jesus was an historically documented person, there is still much to be discovered and accepted about what he truly said and how he lived. That and at it's purest, it is a simple faith.

 

[Moonwalker]

I think organised religion has been deliberately flawed

Of course, it promulgates belief in spurious texts.

The historicity of Jesus is a widely acknowledged fact. This does not mean that he was the son of god, or that his teachings were the word of god.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

I think organised religion has been deliberately flawed from almost pretty much every angle, at almost every opportunity for personal gain or control.

However, Jesus was an historically documented person, there is still much to be discovered and accepted about what he truly said and how he lived. That and at it's purest, it is a simple faith.

Fair play to you Oates. If all religious folk were like you then we wouldn't have threads like this. If it gives you strength and hope then who am I to criticise.

 

[oates]

I'm very pleased to learn that you don't believe in it, I'm just gonna ask on what authority do you not?

With the authority of Christ. Not the monks.

 

[Moonwalker]

With the authority of Christ. Not the monks.

A christian that dismisses the gospels. You learn something every day.

No doubt you talk to Jesus directly, circumventing the nonsense of scripture.

 

[oates]

A christian that dismisses the gospels. You learn something every day.

No doubt you talk to Jesus directly, circumventing the nonsense of scripture.

Well that's not what I've said but of course it suits you to promote that as what I have said.

 

[Moonwalker]

The bit that I quoted is from Mark chapter 9, verse 43. That's Jesus speaking according to Mark, not Mark himself. You say you don't believe the monks, what am I to conclude from that if not that you don't believe in the accuracy of the canonical gospel itself?

 

[oates]

The bit that I quoted is from Mark chapter 9, verse 43. That's Jesus speaking according to Mark, not Mark himself. You say you don't believe the monks, what am I to conclude from that if not that you don't believe in the accuracy of the canonical gospel itself?

So you believe in all the texts? Of course you believe in none but at the same time you want your cake and eat it, you want to be able to criticise a christian who has an enquiring mind, a christian who doesn't believe in the more hateful texts that do not speak of Christ's love.

Did Christ say anywhere that you cannot love people of other faith? That he did not?

 

[Moonwalker]

So you believe in all the texts? Of course you believe in none but at the same time you want your cake and eat it, you want to be able to criticise a christian who has an enquiring mind, a christian who doesn't believe in the more hateful texts that do not speak of Christ's love.

Did Christ say anywhere that you cannot love people of other faith? That he did not?

I wish that made sense oates, I really do. My beliefs are plain and simple, and intelligible. I don't believe any of if. The question is not what I believe, but what you believe, and it seems to be a salad of cherry picked beliefs.

The inconsistencies and incoherence of 'sacred' texts are not my problem. The discrepancy between 'more hateful' and 'loving' texts are only a problem for someone who wants to claim that this is the revealed word of god.

 

[JakeC]

It could go on in a loop forever and ever. It's an illogical question. You ask who created the Creator, then you'll ask who created the creator of the Creator, and so on and so on. So this is something irrational.

That's the idea man.

 

[oates]

I wish that made sense oates, I really do. My beliefs are plain and simple, and intelligible. I don't believe any of if. The question is not what I believe, but what you believe, and it seems to be a salad of cherry picked beliefs.

The inconsistencies and incoherence of 'sacred' texts are not my problem. The discrepancy between 'more hateful' and 'loving' texts are only a problem for someone who wants to claim that this is the revealed word of god.

Moonwalker, to me you are like a reformed smoker who can quote chapter and verse and still tear into someone who has not rejected what you have with the passion and delight of a zealot. Strange huh?

I said my faith was a simple faith and yet you would rather I believed the faith of the crusaders, the inquisition or the conquistadors because it would suit you.

Perhaps we are diabolically (sic) opposed because of your faiths and not mine.

 

[PhilipB]

Snarling hyenas, zealots, omar...

This thread has it all.

 

[Moonwalker]

Moonwalker, to me you are like a reformed smoker who can quote chapter and verse and still tear into someone who has not rejected what you have with the passion and delight of a zealot. Strange huh?

I said my faith was a simple faith and yet you would rather I believed the faith of the crusaders, the inquisition or the conquistadors because it would suit you.

Perhaps we are diabolically (sic) opposed because of your faiths and not mine.

There's a childlike innocence about you oates that's quite disarming.

 

[MrMarcello]

You do not understand the point. This world we are living in is only a temporary world, and a test for the afterlife. There will be justice for all in the afterlife.

Considering I was raised in the Christain faith and finally bolted free of its brainwashed shackles around age 25 (and fully free by age 30), I do understand the point. If no child was indoctrinated (i.e. brainwashed) from an early age then very few would believe this batshit nonsense well into their adult life through death.

It's all hogwach mystical crap instilled in the human psyche when very few people had adequate IQ (by today's standard) and life revolved around the church which ran the local societies. Unfortunately, continued indoctrination and conversion through missionaries further corrupts the human mind. We've come too far along in evolution, science, and techonology to continue believing in an invisible diety that allows some sects to claim their view is the correct choice, to cast judgment on others, and interpret religious passages as to their personally held beliefs and mode of life. The end of times has been claimed for centuries and yet there has not once been any physical presense of god or any recorded history of a god's presence (outside of men that claimed to be god or a son of god/prophet).

Men created gods (Aristotle). There is no afterlife - it's a hope created in primitive eras when life truly sucked balls. And that hope was conned on the people to further influence societal norms and biblical law while keeping the church coffers full and the clergy in tremendous power. Today it's seen as a reward from god where there will be no illness, or famine, and the deceased are reunited, instead of allowing humans to actually enjoy this so-called gift of life (well unless you are born deaf, mute, handicapped, homosexual, crazy, drug addicted, retarded, etc.) It also keeps the church coffers full and gives the religious political power that is often perverted to personal agendas.

It's ridiculous to even consider all of this nonsense.

 

[Wibble]

It could go on in a loop forever and ever. It's an illogical question. You ask who created the Creator, then you'll ask who created the creator of the Creator, and so on and so on. So this is something irrational.

It strikes me as a very rational question. Lack of evidence doesn't prove that something isn't real or true but after a while it can get terribly suggestive. Especially when we have better explanations.

 

[nimic]

There's a childlike innocence about you oates that's quite disarming.

You should try to debate Penna. It's the weirdest experience.

 

[Revan]

Well for instance in the example of the Quran, it says at one point to hunt down and kill infidels wherever they are found. At another point it says if you kill one person it is as if you've killed all of humanity. So here then we are told a thing is good, and bad at the same time. So what is a Muslim supposed to make of this?

Imo there are many different interpretations of these seemingly absolute rules. You can of course just pick one (see Al qaeda) or the other. You can say these are contradictory statements and thus clearly not divine, and disregard the religion. You can say these commands came in different contexts, and it is the situation that defines which to follow. My point here is that within a seemingly absolute or unchanging maxim there can be many different meanings. It is all based on the individual.

There are no interpretation, they are verses that contradicts each other. The same as in Bible if Jesus was God, son of God, or a messenger. There is nothing to interpret it, and of course that is beyond rational logic. Do you know why? Because it's illogical, like are the most of things in Holy Books. They are just tools of power and just another tool to rule. And they are interpreted in that way to suit those who interpret.

 

[Wibble]

The Arc interests me. Where did they put the millions of insect species? Why didn't the predators slaughter half of the rest of the animals?

etc

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

The Arc interests me. Where did they put the millions of insect species? Why didn't the predators slaughter half of the rest of the animals?

etc

It is a metaphor you mad man. All the silly stories in the bible are now.

 

[Spoony]

It is a metaphor you mad man. All the silly stories in the bible are now.

God speaks in metaphors, what better way to confuse the hell out of the plebs? And the arc was great...about the size of Stalybridge...well, it must've been.

 

[Excal]

For some reason I thought Spoony was talking about the arc on that Ibra goal.

I might need sleep...

 

[Wibble]

God speaks in metaphors, what better way to confuse the hell out of the plebs? And the arc was great...about the size of Stalybridge...well, it must've been.

I wonder what the Arc was a metaphore for?