# God



## Master of Blades

I know for a fact that there is a lot of religeons on this board and people who believe in them but I just wanted to hear everyones opinion on the subject. Who actually believes in God and why? If you dont what dont you believe about or is just the idea of it all? Me personally I'm Jewish by name but I have chosen Atheist because I dont believe in God and on the whole I believe Religeon is a bad thing. I'm thinking of becoming Jedi cuz thats the only Religeon that makes any sense to me at the moment. 

P.s Can we have no religeon bashing here.....I just want to here views etc :shrug:


----------



## yilisifu

Havbing studied and practiced Buddhism and  later, Daoism for many years, I am a hardcore Christian.

   Organized religion certainly has had it's negative points, but that doesn't mean the doctrine is bad...just as if a given martial arts practicioner goes out and gets crazy and kills someone, that should not reflect on the martial arts as a whole.  His actions do not mean that martial arts is wrong or "bad"; only that HE is.

   So I am a Christian and I'll be the first in line to stand up and say it.


----------



## Seig

I'm born a Jew.  I have studied every major religion in the world.  Guess what, they all have a common underling theme.  After experiencing real miracles in my own life, I have had to redefine who I am and what I believe in.  Each man's relationship, or lack thereof, with God is his own.  Having seen things that make me believe, I am a Jew that believes the messiah has come.


----------



## jfarnsworth

Well I'm of the prodistant faith.  I get into church only sometimes. It's hard to try to get up on sunday and make the drive in but it's worth it when you feel better. I have many problems in my life that just drain the entire s*** out of me but that's life. One day we'll all meet the big man in some way shape or form. That's my story and I'm going to stick to that and if anyone wants to talk any further about it you must pm me. That's the only way you'll get me to talk more about the subject.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Practicing Pagan.  Celtic and Egyptian influences, with a good Taoistic flavor.  Primarily Egyptian symbology and concepts.


:asian:


----------



## Cliarlaoch

I'm Christian. Baptized Salvation Army, and baptized again by choice later in life. 

I don't know exactly why, but I just got this feeling that there was a cause behind all the coincidences in my life, and began reading the Bible. It made sense. Call it divine revelation, call it faith, call it what you want, but God gave me a wakeup call, and I answered... I had been very agnostic for years, but that all changed when I met my fiancee... weird that, eh? Pascal's wager had an impact too... 

I have no problems with people of any religion... I don't necessarily like some (if someone's Satanic, I WILL get in their face about it, for obvious reasons), but on the whole... God gave us free choice, and I've made mine (that is, to serve and follow Christ).

--Cliarlaoch


----------



## chufeng

Born and raised Catholic...
Left that religion as a Sophomore in high school.
Wandered and studied a variety of religions to include Buddhism, Taoism (they are actually more philosophies and disciplines at their core), and Hindu...

I am a Christian, though...and practice Zen meditation...much like the contemplative disciplines in the old church (before the Catholic church forbade such things)...

I am interested in ALL world views...better communication between people is probably the best way to AVOID conflict...

Forcing an ideology down someone's throat is the qickest way to lose someone...

We each believe that our belief is THE way...and that is fine...I do not have an overwhelming urge to kill someone because he or she does not see the world as I do. Hopefully, I can live my life in such a way so others will want to follow a similar path.

I do not preach...but if someone ASKS, I will share my thoughts on it...and I always preface my statements with, "I could be wrong, but..."

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Mon Mon

Im a christian


----------



## Pakhet

Baptized Methodist at birth, raised Southern Baptist, I'm now an eclectic pagan, heavy on the celtic and egyptian symbolism.  I study just about everything, though...reading the Goetia right now.

Lisa


----------



## Abbax8

I was born and raised a Catholic, drifted away for a while, studied aspects of Eastern faiths and even dabbled in the occult. Now I'm back home in the Catholic faith and taking the time to learn what the church REALLY teaches. So far it all makes sense to ME. More than that, I am filled with something that helps me to be the father and husband I need to be.

                                                               Peace
                                                                 Dennis


----------



## Abbax8

Originally posted by Chufeng

I am a Christian, though...and practice Zen meditation...much like the contemplative disciplines in the old church (before the Catholic church forbade such things)...

     The church today does not forbid contemplative meditation- it highly recommnends it. Examples are the Rosary, Centering Prayer, Eucharistic Adoration.


                                                        Peace
                                                          Dennis


----------



## Nightingale

raised Roman Catholic.  I found too many things about Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general that I didn't like, particularly its intolerance of people who believe differently, and its active conversion strategies.  My view is that if people have an interest in your faith, they will seek you out. There is no need to actively recruit.  For some reason, many christians are intolerant of other religions to the point of feeling threatened by them.  Other religions, however, for the most part tend to be rather tolerant of christianity.  I don't care what path you walk as long as you don't try to trample on mine.  Open dialogue is good.  "You're going to hell if you don't convert!" is bad.

I found Wicca/Paganism in high school.  Nobody "recruited" me. I found it on my own in a book, found the ideas in the book meshed with everything I already believed, and actively sought out others on the same path.  What really struck me was the two main ideas.  The first is "There is no one true way."  Each person needs to follow their own path. No path is better or worse than anyone else's, just different.  We're all different people, and naturally, we will approach the concept of god and religious faith differently.  

The second was "If it harms none, do what you will."  This means that your actions shouldn't cause pain or suffering to anyone or anything, yourself included.  What it pretty much amounts to is that if your actions don't help someone out, make someone feel good, or spread a little love around, it probably isn't something you should be doing.  It also stretches to include inaction. If anyone (yourself included) is harmed by your failing to act, then you've still violated the rule, so you can't just say "I don't want to get involved." because by being human and a member of society, you are already involved.  The problem I always had with the ten commandments is that I found people doing evil things and justifying them because they weren't forbidden by those rules.

Wicca really doesn't have any "sacred texts" or bibles or whatever. I've found that religions with large texts can twist the text to mean whatever they need it to mean to suit their purpose through selective editing.  They also don't always take into account the historical times in which the documents were written, and even if those documents were divinely inspired, they were still written through a human "lens" and human beings are just that. Human.  

"Harm none" is kind of hard to screw up.  Its more a way of life than a way of religion.  Being Wiccan means that I see God in everything and everyone.  It makes me accountable for my actions.

Many people are afraid of Wicca and Wiccans (who sometimes call themselves "white witches") mainly because they don't understand.  Wiccans sometimes use the term "witch" because it relates to the pre christian European idea of the "wise woman", "witch" or "herbalist".  we don't fly on broomsticks and turn people into frogs.  We have no "magic" beyond that magic that every human being possesses.  What we call "spells" are nothing more than prayers and prayer rituals, just like church, and many of the christian rituals have pagan roots...  you know Easter?  the name comes from the pagan festival of 
Eostara (EE-star-uh), the spring holiday.  That's why you eat chocolate rabbits, think about little baby chicks, and color eggs...they're pagan fertility symbols.  The early christians set their festival of life at the same time and adopted the same symbols.

Pagans and Christians are two branches of the same tree.  We both respect life and the world we live in, and want to change it for the better.  We love our friends, our families, and our world, and would never harm another human being without due cause.

If you have a question about wicca, ask a wiccan. please. don't assume. don't generalize. and please don't assume that what your priest or pastor says about us is correct, because they probably don't know any more than you do.

Good books to look at for more information are:

anything by Silver Ravenwolf
anything by Scott Cunningham
Pagans and Christians (forget author's name...its written by a christian, though, and is a very interesting read. the man has done his research well on both sides of the issue).

respectfully, 

-N-


----------



## Kiz Bell

Hi,

I am a Witch and a Pagan but I am not Wiccan.  I have been a witch for about 17 or 18 years now.  The most common question I get asked is are you a white witch or a black witch?  I tell 'em I'm a Green Witch! Depending on my mood I might also call myself a Kitchen Witch.  I don't call myself a Wiccan because my main influences are from traditional Norse and Celtic witchcraft/shamanism rather than the Alexandrian or whatever style Wicca I've seen.

Real witchcraft is about as similar to Charmed as your local dojo is to the Power Rangers.  Witchcraft also has nothing to Satanism either.  Satan is a Christian concept.  Witchcraft does have a God/Goddess figure though.  Being female I naturally gravitate toward the Goddess side though.

For me witchcraft is less about rituals and covens (I'm not in one) than it is about healing (both people and animals) through  herbalism, healing through massage and counselling, and other related skills, as well as the growing, care and identification of medicinal plants, and the care of people and animals in sickness and in health.  My spiritual path also requires strict vegetarianism.  I have not eaten any meat or byproducts for over 16 years now. 

But that is my path.  Other witches may follow different ones.  Just like other religions, witchcraft/paganism/wicca is incredibly diverse, and gets it's fundementalist fruitcakes like all others - but don't judge all of us witches by them.  They're no more representative of this religion that your local bible-bashing born again Jesus-freak is of general Christianity.

"Blessed Be",  Kiz


----------



## Bob Hubbard

A couple of side threads to this discussion would be, does your faith help, hinder or have no effect your training?  

How does a Christian resolve the 'turn the other cheek' or the Wiccan the 'Harm None' aspects with martial training?

With the obvious 'flavoring' of religions other than your own in the arts, how do you deal with the conflicts between your beliefs and the traditions of the art you study?

Did you select an art based on its 'compatability' with you own belief system?

These are the questions I come up with when I think about thise subject... if anyone would like to pick up any of them for discussion, please start a new thread.

I personally find it interesting that the members of this board cross all nationalities, all races, genders, religions and orientations, and for the most part, can communicate in positive manners.


Nightingale, I used to work with Paul Telesco, husband of Trish Telesco.   Wonderful woman, terrific author and an excelent cook.  I had my first lesson in japanese sword techniques at their house.  Haven't seen em in years though.  heh.

:asian:


----------



## Blindside

I'm used to be an agnostic, now I'm an atheist.

Generally I believe that the concept of God or an afterlife is a mental crutch to help people face the world.  (As in: "God is testing me," or "I prayed to God for help," or "everything is OK, so-in-so is in a better place now.)

I follow an ethic that is derived from a Judeo/Christian system, but I believe that morality can be taught independent of a religious framework.  I think that religions got alot of things right when they set up their moral frameworks, but that it usually because the same types of frameworks tend to make societies work best.

I believe that we exist because some DNA fragments we are carrying around are attempting to replicate and we are an extremely successful method of replication.  

I do not recruit people into my belief system and do not usually initiate discussions on religion, but I'm always up for a good debate.  (I've had a couple of doozies with a Campus Crusade for Christ director when I was in college, it was good clean fun.) 

Lamont


----------



## TLH3rdDan

well being from "The South" and "The Bible Belt" this question pops up alot and i ussually end up pi$$ing alot of people off around here :rofl: go figure huh... im an atheist... i believe that religions and gods or supreme beings were created simply to give answers to things people did not have answers for... take most ancient religions were you had a god or goddess that was resposible for every single aspect of the world... it was just a way of explaining things... then someone got smart and rolled all the gods and goddesses up into one god... not a bad thing... and i believe that they were created to keep everyone in line with the old lines of dont do that youll go to hell or something along those lines...


----------



## Blindside

Hey TLH,

You know you are going to Hell right???

:rofl: 

Lamont


----------



## TLH3rdDan

well if there is a hell i wont be alone and it will be the biggest party of all times... im sure heaven would be pretty boring without ozzy, ac/dc, the stones, and countless other bands...


----------



## Rich Parsons

As for my Beliefs, I was raised in an agnostic Christian house hold from to parents who were raised as strick Seventh Day Adventists.

I have perused the Old Testiment, the New Testiment, The Koran (* Qu'ran *), some Dao, Budhism, Ancentor worship and the spritis of Nature (* Native American *)

I have even read Nietzsche and his treatise God is Dead.
"Yet I was to choose to Believe would not my Belief then be Greater, knowing that God does not exist"

And I also have many classes in Science/Physics and Chemistry, etc., ..., .


I have a personal belief system out of this I call 

Zen Agnostic who recognizes that there is to much commonality in the make up of the universe to have had it created by random.
(* My Path is for me and I expect no one else to follow it or to even understand it. *)

I also believe that our planet is not alone in the Universe. We are located on the outer tip of one of the spirals of the Milky Way which as Galaxy's goes is small and no where near the center. If you argue we are the only life in the Universe. In Engineering if you have  billion data points that give you a constant and one that gives you an anomaly, you basically make a foot note of it and go with the constant. In this case the constant would be no life in the Universe.


Remeber you all asked !


----------



## Nightingale

in wicca, self defense is not only justified, it is MANDATORY under the rule of "harm none."  "Harm none" covers both action and INACTION, so therefore, if, by your own inaction, you allow yourself to be harmed, you violate the rule.  Thus, you must defend yourself in order to minimize the amount of harm done.  The harm is minimized, because although you may cause injury to the other party, you aren't going to cause rape or murder.

For all you christians out there, self defense is permitted (or at least, not prohibited) by the ten commandments.  There are two versions of a particular commandment.  some books say "thou shalt not kill." while others say "thou shalt not murder."  if you trace the bible back to the original aramaic text (or even back to the latin), you discover that the word used translates much closer to murder than to kill.  therefore, one could draw the conclusion, that since the writers of the book got that specific regarding murder, that some kinds of harm and killing could be acceptable under certain circumstances.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *
> 
> Remeber you all asked !   *



Actually, I asked  



> _Originally posted by nightingale8472_
> * in wicca, self defense is not only justified, it is MANDATORY under the rule of "harm none." "Harm none" covers both action and INACTION, so therefore, if, by your own inaction, you allow yourself to be harmed, you violate the rule. Thus, you must defend yourself in order to minimize the amount of harm done. The harm is minimized, because although you may cause injury to the other party, you aren't going to cause rape or murder.
> 
> For all you christians out there, self defense is permitted (or at least, not prohibited) by the ten commandments. There are two versions of a particular commandment. some books say "thou shalt not kill." while others say "thou shalt not murder." if you trace the bible back to the original aramaic text (or even back to the latin), you discover that the word used translates much closer to murder than to kill. therefore, one could draw the conclusion, that since the writers of the book got that specific regarding murder, that some kinds of harm and killing could be acceptable under certain circumstances.
> 
> *



Very very very interesting. I wonder what the Jewish religeon stands on that subject.....:asian:


----------



## Elfan

Athiest.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ 

I find that site extremly useful for information on different religions.


----------



## sweeper

this one's hard for me..  agnostic/athiest I guess, depends who I talk to.

basicly if I'm in a room if athiests I argue in favor of thiests, with thiests I argue for the athiest. My personal view on religion is pritty darn simple, I havn't seen an argument that can prove beon d a shadow of a doubt that either A: there is nothing to reality beond the empiricul universe. and B: That there is something to reality beond the empiricul universe. Leading me to my core belief of "Who cares?" (actualy directed twards myself so maybe more of a "do I care?"). That is to say my life choices would not change if I were to join a religion so why bother?

Actualy the arguments and counter arguments I have considered are a bit more complicated but basicly I don't like organised religious bodies, I personaly don't like the idea of having religious leaders.

(edit) Almost forgot about Kaith's question.

As in my case my religious outlook (or lack of) is essentialy a result of my personality and the way I think, my MA perspectives mirror my religious perspectives in most regards, so I like to practice in an environment where there is little dictation but rather more of a mutual scholastic persuit, that is to say we don't do things because someone told us to but rather because after discusion and experimentation evidence points to it being a good choice. (hope all this makes sence to someone..  it's late and my mind might not be working properly )


----------



## Yari

I just don't beleive... I want to know. What I know I live by.. What I don't know I reflect on.

The question if your religious or if there is a god, are quite uninteressting, because they come down to a beleif system. Any beleif system builds on absolute truth ( a truth that can't be disscussed), which doesn't emphesize discussing it ( or can't tollerate it).

And somewere in my philosphical self I don't beleive in good or bad. Things change, sometimes it's more of one thing, other times it's something else. But thinking of things as good or bad, you use a reference point. Thinking that things are good and bad will just start you off on the path of "better/worse" also called judgemental. Some might say I don't judge, but already there you just did. The other part of good/bad, is that both sides are correct, it's a point of view. And just because you take one side, does that justify that the other side should exsist?

In my world duality is a part of the world. You can't just choose one side, because it'll change. It's the nature of good and bad. They change as times goes by....

/Yari


----------



## qizmoduis

Regarding god-belief, I'm an atheist.  My beliefs in general are probably best accomodated by secular humanism.  I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic schools.  Probably the biggest reason I dropped the religious stuff was that it just makes no sense to me.  While growing up I voraciously read historical stuff, old mythologies from other cultures, bibles, etc.  I also gobbled science fiction like candy.  Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't really distinguish among theistic-beliefs.  They all originated in primitive cultures' attempts to explain things that happened to them over the ages, lacking the modern scientific principles and knowledge base that we have now.


----------



## Cruentus

ya'll have done it now. Here I am in my office on a holiday trying to get work done, and someone had to ask about "God". Now I am going to give my lengthy response, bore everyone, and not get as much done as I expected too today. I'll try to keep this as short and as interesting as I can, but here is my conversion story. and Oh well, here it goes..... 

When I was a kid, I had gone through the Catholic sacraments and catechism. I had a horrible time with the religious education program when I was growing up, mostly do to ignorant and intolerant instructors. Most of these were volunteers who had no training in childhood development or teaching, so they were unable to recognize what the trained teachers and councilors had recognized in the public schools; that I acted the way I did in religious ed. class because I had serious problems at home. You see, I also came from a broken home, and an abusive environment. This turned me completely away from the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general. I couldnt see how Christianity could be the answer when people seemed to act outright evil in the name of it. So I decided that Christianity wasnt for me.

I had an urgent need to find some sort of answer, however, because I wanted to justify ending my own life. Now I have to put a little disclaimer here: I was only 11 years old when I had reached the suicidal stage, but dont let my young age fool you. At the time I was probably on my 10th psychologist (of which only one had diagnosed me as suicidal with homicidal tendancies). Most of these doctors where testing my aptitude, however; apparently I have a talent for conceptual logic and communication. That is not for everyone on this forum to know the details about, because I dont think Im better then anyone else. Everyone has their talents. I just want to make the point that I had been thinking and reading about subjects that take conceptual logic beyond the scope of the average adult when I was about 7 or 8 years old, so by the time I was 11 I had read through and thought through quite a bit, I would say.

Too much knowledge for a young kid with no moral direction is no good, however, because I had rationalized the insignificance of my own existence. That, coupled with my overall lack of enjoyment of everyday life (getting my @$$ kicked at school by bullies, then at home by my parents wasnt helping), I wanted to end my own life. I had decided that before I do so that I had better figure out what life means. So I looked everywhere I could find outside of Christianity for answers. This luckily brought me past my suicidal stage, and I was realizing that there was far too much out there for me to discover, and that killing myself would probably not be such a good idea. 

By 8th grade, life was much better. My parents separated, so my abusive father was no longer as much of an influence. I had gotten proficient enough in my TKD to prevent myself from getting bullied, and I had just started Arnis a year before. Although I went through the motions of a Catholic conformation to appease my mother, I had developed more of an eastern thought in terms of religion; with the philosophies of Taoism, Zen Buddhism, Confucism, and Menceism mixed with an anthropomorphic concept of God. I did not identify myself as a Catholic at all.

That summer after my 8th grade year, I went to Canada on vacation with my mom and brothers to a little resort in Red Bay Canada, off the Georgian pinincula. I met this guy up there who was an Evengelical Christian. He was cool, and not preachy or annoying like many bible-beaters I had met. We got into a conversation about religion. We respected each others views, but I admitted that much of what he said had made sense. I had decided to look back into Christian philosophy, realizing that it did have some value, even though I had not agreed to become Christian. He had sent me a New King James Bible, of which I read the entire thing. I had taken what I liked, and discarded (more or less) what I didnt.

My search continued through my graduating high school. I had Christian philosophy mixed in with eastern thought. I had also identified with tribal Pagan belief systems, particularly those of a Celtic origin. Then the rational for Christianity, one day out of the blue, hit me harder then it had ever had.

THE RATIONAL:

Take 6 people from various cultural backgrounds, and put them in a room: Lets say one Jew from Israel, one Druid from England, an atheist from America, a Christian from Mexico, a Muslim from Iran, and a Buddhist monk from an isolated area in the himilayan mountains. Then ask them various moral questions, such as Is it O.K. to unjustifiably murder someone? or Is it O.K. to steal?

Assuming that the people who were picked are not psychopaths or deemed insane by the standard of their own culture, these people will have a general agreement on key moral issues. Granted, the rational might vary when asked a detailed question. For instance, the Atheist may believe that it would be O.K. to kill someone if you are defending yourself, but the Buddhist might believe that even in that case, that would be murder. But the answer to the broad question: Is it O.K. to unjustifiably kill someone, the general concensus would be no. 

Then ask these same people if there are individuals in their culture who have broken these generally accepted rules. They will all answer yes of course. Now all of you ask yourself, do you have morals or standards that you are unable to live up to? How about your community, or heritage? Dont you see people all around you who make mistakes daily, and dont meet their own standards? Dont you?

Now, examine the animal kingdom. A little lion is eating a fresh kill, and a bigger lion comes along and is hungry. The bigger lion pushes the little lion aside and takes the food. The little lion doesnt exclaim Hey, thats my food! Thats stealing! Im gonna take you to court! The little lion might not be pleased, but the fact is that the animal kingdom doesnt have a method of rationalizing morals the way that we do. Evidance shows that they are working purely out of conditioned response, and instinct. Animals dont have ideals that go beyond the scope of their capabilities like humans do.

So what logical explianation is there for all of this? Nature, and the animal kingdom, conforms to a cycle of birth and death. The same is with our humanly bodies, which will eventually become dust again. But, as humans we are constantly trying to take ourselves out of that cycle. This is why we dont conform well to nature in itself; our destruction of the earth is an unfortunate extension of our personal conflicts with this cycle. And, we are the only beings on this planet that have a standard that is outside of ourselves; and no one knows exactly what that standard is because it wasnt created by humans alone. The only logical explaination, when you think about it, is the Judeo-Christian one; that there is a God beyond us, who created us, and who has set the standards. Since we are not perfect, we struggle to conform to these standards that are beyond us. Since we have souls we desire to be in a place outside of the cycle of birth and death. Without something more powerful then us, we wouldnt even have the desire to try to conform to standards beyond ourselve. We want to improve ourselves because we want to be like God, and we are made in that image.

The Paradox of Evil was also better solved by Christianity then other religions. How can there be evil if there is a God out there who is ultimately good? God is love, and according to Christian theology, he wants us to love before we can be in heaven. In order for us to love, we have to have the ability to choose love or not. Otherwise, it would be forced, and it wouldnt be love at all. Love is what it is because we have the choice to love or not. It is when humans choose not to love, or to walk in truth; that is when problems arise. There is no middle ground. Every choice and behavior is made either for God (good) or for the opposite of God (evil). The Devil, according to theology, just happened to be one of Gods closest angels who chose the opposite of God. Evil exists in this world from people choosing the opposite of God. This evil is the unfortunate, but neccissary consequence of allowing us humans who are not perfect to have the freedom of choice. Our freedom is our own downfall. That is the paradox.

Then, the final argument for Christianity involves Christ himself. When you read the bible stories, you realize more and more that Christ claimed to be the son of God, basically God walking around in the flesh. The only choices that are available to us, then, is that either 1. Jesus is the son of God, or 2. Jesus was insane, or 3. Jesus is the biggest fraud and lier that this world has ever known. There is no middle ground here. Upon realizing that this Jesus person has had such an influence on this world, and that his teachings make sense, and are yet profound still today almost 2000 years later, and all the other proofs that point towards Jesus being a pretty wise, smart, good, and self sacrificing guy, only one conclusion comes to mind. #1 must be correctJesus must be who he said he was.

I am now a practicing Catholic. I had realized that the mistakes made towards me when I was younger were human mistakes, and not the fault of the religion, church, or the truth that exists behind the religion. Unfortunatily human mistakes in the name of religion are very grave. They are a result of human ignorance, not the religion itself. I chose Catholicism because even with the rules and standards of the church, I was able to intigrate the truths that I had learned from eastern theology, and Pegan/tribal thought, exept now God is the underlying purpose for these beliefs. Plus, the Catholic Church is the oldest existing Christian church, and its belief system, rituals, etc. are the closest I can get to the actual practices of the apostiles during the time of Christ. Plus, the doctrine just makes plain sense to me.  

Well, this is my outlook, and how I came to realize what I know to be true. My beliefs may be correct, or incorrect, but they are probably a little of both to some degree. One thing that is a fact, however, is that not everyone can be right. There is a truth out there, and you are either on your own journey towards it, or you are not. I hope for your sake that you are. Just dont be afraid to take the narrow path, to enjoy the scenery, and to ask for directions along the way.             

Peace, love, and with respect,

PAUL

:asian:


----------



## Abbax8

Paul,
      IMHO, NUF SAID, AND WELL SAID!!!

                                                       Peace
                                                           Dennis


----------



## fringe_dweller

Well for I'm a Christian and as for why - it's experience... 
When I was young my parents bought me up in a Baptist church, I loved it as a little kid but as I got older the whole thing seemed a bit boring and restrictive. Somewhere along the line things got out of hand and I started getting into some stupid stuff. Eventually woke up and wondered what had become of my life and decided to give this church that some of the kids at school were talking about. This was at age 17.
Started seeing a girl and while we were mucking around she fell over and sprained her ankle to the point where she had to get crutches. Went to church that night where someone bent over and put their hands on her ankle and asked God to heal her and she threw away her crutches and walked. That was pretty impressive.


----------



## Deathtrap101

Very well put there Paul, great post.

 I am a Christian, sometimes question parts of it and always trying to make my faith stronger. This thread has done some good for me.


----------



## Jill666

No, thank you.


----------



## Cruentus

And for the record, I respect everyones right to have their own beliefs. This post wasn't predominatily Christian; actually it seemed to be predominatily "athiest". I can respect that, it's their journay, but I just wanted to give an alternative. More importantly, I wanted to explain the logic behind my alternative.

I really am enjoying this post so far, and hearing everyones point of view. 

*Jill666* O.K. Jill, you got my attention. I am totally confused... are you saying "God, No Thank You" as in your not interested in God, or are you saying "God.....No, Thank YOU" like your actually thanking God for something. Or, like God thanked you for something, and you said "No, Thank You" as in "my Pleasure." 

Really, I don't know what you mean.


----------



## Nightingale

seemed to me like she was saying no thanks to the idea of god.


----------



## Cruentus

Yea, probably.

I'm just being kind of an antagonist, (or a-hole, whichever you'd prefer to call it ). I was attempting to get her to elaborate a little bit. The comment seemed a little snide after my post, and the few others after mine, anyhow.

It wasn't like she was simply stating her belief's, or giving a useful reasoning behind her beliefs. A good example of an appropriate "non-christian" answer on this thread was quizmoduis post. He stated he was an athiest, and gave his reasoning behind it. I may not agree with him, but he at least stated his beliefs in a constructive manner. In fact, even the other posts that were briefer then his where pretty constructive, I thought. 

I didn't feel that Jill666 had stated her opinion in the same constructive manner as the rest of the posts here, whether intentional or not. Plus, linguistic structure of "God....No, Thank You." is pretty confusing as well when you think about it, even though I could guess what she probably meant by it.

Anyways, I'm rambling. Sorry. If Jill666 didn't want to elaborate or discuss her beliefs in a constructive way, then she should not have posted on a thread that is primarily discussing religious beliefs. I don't know if that is the case with her or not, though, at least not until she posts something in explaination.


----------



## Cruentus

O.K., now I really am being an @-hole.  :lol: 

I'm totally just kidding around, though. I hope you all, including you Jill666, will see the humor, and not get POed at me. :asian:


----------



## fist of fury

I'm not an atheist or agnostic. I think religion is a load of crap that people use as a crutch to argue how right they are and how wrong everybody else is. I was somewhat of an atheist when I was younger until I was told that evolution was scientific.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

I don't go slamming my religion down anyone's throat. What pisses me off are people going around slamming other people's religions.  People who state that religion is a clutch, have no clue what they are talking about, either due to youthful ignorance, or simply ignorance.


----------



## fist of fury

I agree ignorance is a big problem today. It seems to be more rampant in today's society than ever before.


----------



## Zoran

I was born a Serbian Orthodox.

Really a Christian under my own terms...not affiliated to any church or religious group. 

Follower of the Tao of Z-Rex


----------



## Quick Sand

My thoughts tend to be more along the lines of sweeper. I haven't made a decision about whether or not I believe there is some higher power(s) and I think I'll keep it that way for a while. 

There maybe very well be a higher power of some kind or there may not be, but either way I try to live my life as a good person. 

I think being relegious can be a very good thing in some cases and I know it has really helped some of my family and friends. 

Like I said, either way I try to be a good person and I guess I'll find out when I die.  :asian:


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Zoran _
> *I was born a Serbian Orthodox.*



While in college I dated a girl who was Russian Orthodox. I learned that Russian Orthodox holidays fell whenever she had an exam.


----------



## Zoran

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *While in college I dated a girl who was Russian Orthodox. I learned that Russian Orthodox holidays fell whenever she had an exam. *



Wife is Russian Orthodox. Our holidays are based on an older version of the calendar. Before the Catholics changed it. 

Example:
Christmas falls on 12/25. On the Old calendar 12/25 is on 1/7. So I get to have 2 Christmas holidays.


----------



## Elfan

> _Originally posted by Zoran _
> *Wife is Russian Orthodox. Our holidays are based on an older version of the calendar. Before the Catholics changed it.
> 
> Example:
> Christmas falls on 12/25. On the Old calendar 12/25 is on 1/7. So I get to have 2 Christmas holidays.  *



heh lucky you, the Eastern Orthodox people I know just get to wait until the 7th, no fun on the 25th for them.


----------



## Jill666

Not at all your fault you caught me at the wrong time of year-  I do tend to be reactionary to the topics of religion or God (from about early November to February).

I grew up Catholic. My childhood wasn't pleasant, and religion became a bizzarre backdrop for other things-

I have read your post. I am truly pleased you have beliefs that sustain you and make sense to you. Also, you opened up a great deal, which couldn't be easy.

I have studied a number of religions and thought I had the answer a number of times, just to find I don't even know the question. And frankly, I don't care. I try to grow and be a decent, honest person. I usually fall short. Who doesn't?

My husband on the other hand, has recently been "saved" and seems to think I should be too. I'm hoping my 9-year marriage gets through this. So, yup, your candor got rewarded with a knee-jerk response that you didn't deserve.

I can't reason out my beliefs, and lack much of the education to match many here, so that's all for now...

Peace out


----------



## Samurai

My views.......
http://www.geocities.com/indianamartialarts/christian.htm

Jeremy Bays


----------



## Blindside

> _Posted by Napalm:_ People who state that religion is a clutch, have no clue what they are talking about, either due to youthful ignorance, or simply ignorance.





> _Posted by Fist:_I agree ignorance is a big problem today. It seems to be more rampant in today's society than ever before.



What is your definition of ignorance?  I would argue that what you are viewing as ignorance (lack of education or information) is actually just the opposite.  It is the access to more information regarding human psychology and behavior that makes such statements perfectly valid as a opinion.  

The posts on this thread have shown alot of people who have researched and have described what and why they believe the way they do.  That is most certainly not ignorance.  

Lamont


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

When people say that religion is a clutch, they have NOT a clue what grace and faith mean. They have never felt it nor experienced it. They have no clue how it enriches one's life and enables a person to blossom beyond the confine of the atheist's limited existence. Yet they seem to see fit to generalize all the religious people as weak. It is not only ignorance, but also arrogance.


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *What is your definition of ignorance?  I would argue that what you are viewing as ignorance (lack of education or information) is actually just the opposite.  It is the access to more information regarding human psychology and behavior that makes such statements perfectly valid as a opinion.
> 
> The posts on this thread have shown alot of people who have researched and have described what and why they believe the way they do.  That is most certainly not ignorance.
> 
> Lamont *


In my opinion ignorance isn't necessarily a lack of education or information. To me it's the laziness in  that people will accept almost everything they hear without researching it themselves. Do you believe it because it's what you believe or because it's what you were told to believe. Religious intolerance is another form of ignorance, people who feel they have to convert the world by cramming thier belief's down others throats. I speak from experience as I used to be like that and then one day I finally wised up and realized people can believe what they want and it isn't my place to change thier mind. I agree most people that have posted on this thread have researched and believe what they do because of thier own discoveries they used intelligence and not just followed the crowd. Unlike many today who just follow like a mass of mindless cattle.


----------



## qizmoduis

On ignorance:  Given my history, I can absolutely state with all confidence that my lack of belief in a deity-concept is NOT based on ignorance.  In my experience, the opposite is true.  It is most often the case, that such claims about atheism arise out of a provincial and credulous mindset that is generally incapable of objectively analyzing an opposing stance on a set of beliefs that has been ingrained from birth (in whatever form).  Most people in the US think that atheists are evil, immoral, satan-worshipping, baby-killers who should be thrown out of the country.  They have been taught such things by their religious leaders, and actually believe it.  I've been told such things to my face by more people than I can count.  I was taught of the evil horrors of atheists while growing up. 

I do believe that religion is generally a crutch for people, for whatever reason.  It is also, in a larger sense, a power structure that allows folks to be manipulated in subtle and very insidious ways.  What better way to control people then through their beliefs?  With religion, there is always a way to motivate believers, by setting up and controlling their perceptions of "the others"; those who do not share their beliefs.  Often, the others become scapegoats for the power-mongers.  History bears out my viewpoint.  Religion may occasionally benefit individuals, but such benefits are temporary.  In the long run, religions can only do harm, both personally and on a global scale.  Most of the time, the personal harm of a religion is insignificant and only involves small prejudices, loss of critical thinking ability and objectivity, etc. 
Witness the constant manifestations of nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc.  All of this can be directly traced to religious training.

My opinions about religion - and this is very important to understand - are utterly distinct from my beliefs in deities.  I arrived at those conclusions more or less separately, through close observation, intense introspection, harsh analysis of my own beliefs, and much reading and discussion.

But then, it's much simpler and probably more self-validating to dismiss my beliefs and lack of belief as ignorance.  That very neatly sidesteps the necessity to examine your own beliefs in order to understand mine.  Examining one's closely-held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience, especially when those beliefs have been taught to you since before you you could speak.

Uh......

That's more than I intended to say.  Sorry about that.  I get twitchy fingers when subjects like this come up.  I hope I haven't offended anyone; I've tried to keep my writing as emotionless as possible, but this is such a touchy subject.  I usually stay as far away from it as I can.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

It is one thing to state your own belief, whatever that may or may not be. That is fine. People can respect that.  It is another to generalize and pigeonhole other people for what they believe or do not believe. You cannot possibly know every one of them for what they have in their hearts. Who are you to judge? It makes you no better than those you seek to condemn.


----------



## fist of fury

I don't judge any of them until they start pushing it my face. And true my opinion maybe somewhat jaded since I live in the "bible Belt". And as I stated earlier I used to be that way I condemed people to a certain degree it was my job to save everybody from going to hell. Well it very well maybe but i was going about it all wrong. And as i got older I learned to question things and not take everything that comes from the pulpit as pure and absolute truth. Look at the average church goer and many of them do the same i've been to many different churhces in my life. Hell there are at least 2 churches of various religions on just about every street corner. I've had former friends from highschool that were having problems back then serious problems that I helped. They got invovled in the church and I've left since then and changed some of my beliefs and they will have nothing to do with me because in thier opinion I'm a back slidder sad really.  As i said earlier I have my faith I'd never be able to become an athiest there's no way I could believe evolution is scientific.


----------



## Blindside

> They have never felt it nor experienced it. They have no clue how it enriches one's life and enables a person to blossom beyond the confine of the atheist's limited existence.



Ah, OK you are talking about ignorance of faith.  Which would be fair except there are lots of people just on this thread that started in different faiths and moved away from it.  

That an atheists existence is limited is of course your opinion, an atheist could argue that you are deluded for believing there is a greater existence out there.  

This would be exactly the cRutch that I was refering to earlier.  How does faith enrich your life?  Does it give you a sense of purpose?  A sense of security?  Moral correctness?

As a child we (hopefully) had our parents to guide and help us and to answer those tough questions (why is the sky blue?).  One of the big difficulties of adolescence is the coming of adulthood and the understanding that we are supposed to now be independent.  As an analogy I view the person who requires faith to be a child, dependent upon the belief there is some great parent out there who will answer take the questions you can't answer and protect you when times are hard.  The atheist has to deal with life on its true terms, because they have no mythical being/structure to remove some of those mental responsibilites.

So I may be ignorant of faith, but then I'm ignorant of crack too, I can emperically view the effects and restrictions of both and decide that I want neither.

Lamont

_edited because I forget to include a quote_ 

I submit that we are both atheist, I simply believe in one fewer god than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours." 
     ~Stephen F. Frost


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _.....Most people in the US think that atheists are evil, immoral, satan-worshipping, baby-killers who should be thrown out of the country.  They have been taught such things by their religious leaders, and actually believe it.  I've been told such things to my face by more people than I can count.  I was taught of the evil horrors of atheists while growing up. ..



That is generalization. I have not heard that been taught to me nor my friends. I am a Christian. But I don't harbour any negative opinions toward non-Christians nor atheists.  I tend to get pissed when other people stereotype me.



> I do believe that religion is generally a crutch for people, for whatever reason.  It is also, in a larger sense, a power structure that allows folks to be manipulated in subtle and very insidious ways.  What better way to control people then through their beliefs?  With religion, there is always a way to motivate believers, by setting up and controlling their perceptions of "the others"; those who do not share their beliefs.  Often, the others become scapegoats for the power-mongers.  History bears out my viewpoint.  Religion may occasionally benefit individuals, but such benefits are temporary.  In the long run, religions can only do harm, both personally and on a global scale.  Most of the time, the personal harm of a religion is insignificant and only involves small prejudices, loss of critical thinking ability and objectivity, etc.
> Witness the constant manifestations of nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc.  All of this can be directly traced to religious training.



This is a reflection of ignorance of the existence of a majority of Christians who neither control, nor seek to control, nor controlled by any person, any institution nor any power.  Your view is a reflection of utter ignorance of the existence of free will. 99% of the Christians do not live a life as you have stereotyped.  I think ignorance can be defined as " YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, YET YOU SEE FIT TO TALK"

The assertion that religion is harmful, is pure garbage. Which religion teaches people to harm, hurt and destroy? NONE. This is like saying martial art is harmful to people in the long run! YES. That is exactly what you are saying. 

You seem to have mistaken the evil deed that crooks and political hacks have done using religion as cover, as the evil deed in religion itself.  Just b/c some criminals use martial art to commit crime, does that criminalize martial arts?  But your logic says just that!  

To attribute the nonsensical garbage you listed to religion is the most absurd thing !  It is a reflection of your ignorance in generalizing being religious as being irrational.  Do you think atheists alone alone have a monopoly on rationale and logic?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by fist of fury _
> I don't judge any of them until they start pushing it my face. And true my opinion maybe somewhat jaded since I live in the "bible Belt". And as I stated earlier I used to be that way I condemed people to a certain degree it was my job to save everybody from going to hell. Well it very well maybe but i was going about it all wrong. And as i got older I learned to question things and not take everything that comes from the pulpit as pure and absolute truth. Look at the average church goer and many of them do the same i've been to many different churhces in my life. Hell there are at least 2 churches of various religions on just about every street corner. I've had former friends from highschool that were having problems back then serious problems that I helped. They got invovled in the church and I've left since then and changed some of my beliefs and they will have nothing to do with me because in thier opinion I'm a back slidder sad really.  As i said earlier I have my faith I'd never be able to become an athiest there's no way I could believe evolution is scientific.



You are judging the rest of the world, based ONLY on you own exposure/experience.  Do you think your experience is the universal standard that applies to every other human beings?


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Witness the constant manifestations of nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc.  All of this can be directly traced to religious training.
> *



To me the evolution theory is non sensical thinking yet it was crammed down my throat as scientific fact.


----------



## Blindside

> The assertion that religion is harmful, is pure garbage. Which religion teaches people to harm, hurt and destroy? NONE.



Hmmm.  

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

I believe that comes out of the Bible, which many people will say is the word of god.


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *You are judging the rest of the world, based ONLY on you own exposure/experience.  Do you think your experience is the universal standard that applies to every other human beings? *



In my opinion it applies to the majority ,but this is only my opinion the majority of religious people I have met. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong but until I see something to change my opinion I will stick with what I beleive. Many can't think outside of the "box" turn on any religious station. Look at the children that grow up in a church do you think thier parents teach them about other religious without a bias so the child can make his/her own decision. I don't think that everyone out there that has a religious faith is an ignorant boob but my opinion  is that is the majority


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> Ah, OK you are talking about ignorance of faith.  Which would be fair except there are lots of people just on this thread that started in different faiths and moved away from it.
> 
> That an atheists existence is limited is of course your opinion, an atheist could argue that you are deluded for believing there is a greater existence out there.



1. There are also many who started out as Christians, left to explore and later returned. So what is your point?

2. If the atheists want to accuse the majority of the people on earth as being deluded except for the atheists, go right ahead.



> This would be exactly the cRutch that I was refering to earlier.  How does faith enrich your life?  Does it give you a sense of purpose?  A sense of security?  Moral correctness?



If you don't know, then what makes your view worth more than a pile of dog poop?


> As a child we (hopefully) had our parents to guide and help us and to answer those tough questions (why is the sky blue?).  One of the big difficulties of adolescence is the coming of adulthood and the understanding that we are supposed to now be independent.  As an analogy I view the person who requires faith to be a child, dependent upon the belief there is some great parent out there who will answer take the questions you can't answer and protect you when times are hard.  The atheist has to deal with life on its true terms, because they have no mythical being/structure to remove some of those mental responsibilites.


Sheer arrogance!  As if you alone have a monopoly of rationality, logic and facing life head on.  Sheer stupidity to assume others as having their "mental responsibilites removed".  I have nothing but contempt for people who demonstrate such sheer ignorance as to pressume so much about others' lives.  HOW OLD ARE YOU? How can you seriously go around assuming you know about how everyone else grows up?   


> So I may be ignorant of faith, but then I'm ignorant of crack too, I can emperically view the effects and restrictions of both and decide that I want neither.


Great analogy.   . Your empirical view on religion and religious people, is WRONG.   But, No one cares what you want for yourself. However, when you make an ignorant statement, expect to be rebutted.


----------



## qizmoduis

Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply.  You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe.  I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.

That's why I don't usually engage in these debates.  I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.

Fist of Fury:  Evolution is a different topic.  For more information, you should really read up on the facts of evolution and the theory of how evolution most likely happened.  Try www.talkorigins.org for good information.  There is no scientific debate regarding the facts of evolution.  In fact, my personal opinion is that evolution is so much an application of common sense that it's silly to deny that it happens.  Arguing about the details, of course, is both appropriate and important.  Modern biological science and medicine wouldn't exist without it.  There is certainly no viable and reasonable alternative.


----------



## Blindside

> To me the evolution theory is non sensical thinking yet it was crammed down my throat as scientific fact.



Evolutionary theory is not a fact, it is a THEORY.  A theory that is shown to be essentially true becomes a law.  However, the current model for evolution is the best model out there because no other model can survive near the level of examination it has.  It has problems, and those problems are being addressed by current research, just like any othe scientific issue.  The counter theory of creationism really doesn't have any evidence for it, it just pokes holes in the evolution argument.

Lamont


----------



## fist of fury

qiz- Thanks I'll check it out 
Blindside- The thing that annoyed me was it was never presented as theory but as fact. My biggest problem is at least present  several thoeries and allow people to make thier own educated decisions. To me that's just as bad as what people complain that religion is doing.
I don't want to turn this into an evolution debate.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *Hmmm.
> "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
> I believe that comes out of the Bible, which many people will say is the word of god. *



I have no idea what that means.

You can spend the rest of your life to quote things out of the Bible that are wrong, inconsistent, wicked, bloody, self contradictory etc etc etc. 
You can also talk endlessly about how out of date the current Christian doctrines may be in some areas.

I do not wish to go into that.

If you care to, read the New Testament, not the Old Testament.


----------



## Blindside

Hey Napalm chill out.  This is a debate, you are now supposed to poke holes in my argument, not call me names.



> Great analogy.  . Your empirical view on religion and religious people, is WRONG. But, No one cares what you want for yourself. However, when you make an ignorant statement, expect to be rebutted.



This is not a rebuttal, A rebuttal means "to refute by offering countering evidence" something that you have not done.

I await your rebuttal.

Lamont


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by fist of fury _
> In my opinion it applies to the majority ,but this is only my opinion the majority of religious people I have met. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong but until I see something to change my opinion I will stick with what I beleive. Many can't think outside of the "box" turn on any religious station. Look at the children that grow up in a church do you think thier parents teach them about other religious without a bias so the child can make his/her own decision. I don't think that everyone out there that has a religious faith is an ignorant boob but my opinion  is that is the majority



I am not aware of the Bible belt situation. May be you should get away from those people. I can assure you that even in one of the best known research institutes in the country, I have met an extensive network of religious people who are doing the most advanced scientific research in their respective fields. And these are certainly quite UNLIKE what you have described.  That is why. your assertion regarding the"majority" cannot be true.


----------



## Cruentus

Hey, thanks for explaining your position a little bit better. Believe me, I understand a bit of what you might be going through. As you had read, I had been a victim of bad s**t in the name of religion. It does make it really hard to want to even deal with the subject when that is the case. Also, I apoligize if I seemed rude, and I didn't really mean to put you in an uncomfortable position.

In regards to your husband being "saved", I can only imagine the problems that this could cause your marraige. I have never been married, but I have seen situations like that turn for the worst.

I'll relate to you my recent situation; maybe it might help a little. I have been with the same girlfriend for over a year now, and we have plans for marraige. My plans are to propose sometime this year (which is no secret to her; she knows it's comin' so I don't mind saying so online), and we will probably tie the knot 2005 spring. 

When we had met, she had never been baptized. In fact, on our second date we had talked a bit about religion. It started when she was relaying to me a story about a Baptist who had been "saved" who she had gone on a date with. They had gone out to play racket ball, and he kept stopping the game to talk to her about religion; how she was all wrong in her beliefs and how she needs to go to his church, and how she hasn't been "saved" yet (cause of course HE could tell somehow who'll go to heaven and who won't) and yada-yada-yada.....he just wouldn't quit. Needless to say, that date ended early.

So we had a good laugh about that. We did talk briefly about our beliefs, and basically she had relayed to me that she believed in God, but she wasn't particularly religious. There was a lot she needed to look into. I had told her in more of a brief manner then I had even on this forum what my beliefs were, and I relayed the message in a non-threatening manner. I was just satisfied knowing that she was open-minded, searching, and open to the idea of "God". That was all I needed. I realized that it is HER journey, not mine, and that ramming my belief system down her throat would not turn her on to my belief system. She knew that I was there and available for questioning. She saw the way I lived and how important God was to me in my life. Other then that, it is really up to her to do her own searching.

Before this Christmass, an entire year after that second date, she had told me that she wanted to become a Catholic. I didn't ask, she told me. Prior to making this decision, she had read the parts of  "The Catecism of the Catholic Church." Prior to that she had looked into other ways of thought. She had also talked to her Grandma (of whom she identified with pretty well) about the Church, and had gone to mass with her a few times. She had made an informed decision that was right for HER.

We went to mass this Christmass, and we have been going ever since. She is also in the RCIA program, which is basically the adult education program that prepares people for baptism. We are at a pretty cool church that keeps the tradition, yet at the same time the Priests are pretty open minded and progressive. This Easter, my girlfriend will be baptised, confirmed, and she will recieve holy communion. As somebody who wants to marry this girl, I couldn't be happier. 

The important thing about this story is that she made this decision on her own. She did her own research, she did her own searching, and she decided that this was right for her. And by letting her search for her self, I was a possitive influence on her growth. Had I of tried to ram my ideas down her throat, no matter how good my intentions would have been, we wouldn't be together today, and she might not want to be a Catholic today.

Now, Jill, bear with me here.....I'm no Dr. Phil, and I don't know the exact situation between you and your husband, but I would guess by the sound of it that he needs to let you do your own searching. This will be tough for him because many of the people who follow the evengelical idea that they know when a person has been "saved" or not also follow the idea that in marraige 2 people literally become one person, with the husband as the "head." The two beliefs don't have to go hand and hand, but they usually come in the same package. He may in fact be getting this package every Sunday morning at church service. Under this belief system, it becomes inherently difficult to allow the woman in the marrage to have her own identity. Regardless, what he probably needs to realize is that 9 years ago when you two first got married, niether of you upheld the Christian beliefs that he now follows. Whether for the better or not, HE is the one who changed his belief system, NOT YOU. Just because he has changed his values, he can't expect you to run out and do the same just because he wants you to. He needs to allow you to have your own journey, so you can make the decision on your own. From a Christian perspective, he needs to trust in God, and that the Holy Spirit will lead you in the right direction. He also needs to be prepared to accept you if you choose a different path then he. He also needs to understand that the more he pressures you, the more difficult it will be for you to have your own journey.

O.K.....I know that it was unsolicited, but dammit I just spent all that time writting it, so it is to late now, I'm postin' it! Hopefully that was helpful, and hopefully I made sense and didn't sound like a moron. 

In all seriousness though, I hope that I helped. I do wish you and your husband the best. I hope that your 9 year marraige lasts many more happy years.

With Humility and Respect,
PAUL 
:asian:


----------



## Blindside

> I don't want to turn this into an evolution debate.



Cool, maybe we'll make it a seperate thread.    Nah, I'm not up on the latest counter and counter-counter arguments.  Let me get up to speed, say six months or so?  

Lamont


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Blindside _Evolutionary theory is not a fact, it is a THEORY.  A theory that is shown to be essentially true becomes a law.  However, the current model for evolution is the best model out there because no other model can survive near the level of examination it has.  It has problems, and those problems are being addressed by current research, just like any othe scientific issue.  The counter theory of creationism really doesn't have any evidence for it, it just pokes holes in the evolution argument.
> 
> Lamont


The majority of Christian parents teach their children about creationism, just like they teach their children about Santa Claus, the Tooth fairly and the Easter Bunny.


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I am not aware of the Bible belt situation. May be you should get away from those people. I can assure you that even in one of the best known research institutes in the country, I have met an extensive network of religious people who are doing the most advanced scientific research in their respective fields. And these are certainly quite UNLIKE what you have described.  That is why. your assertion regarding the"majority" cannot be true. *



Well the bible belt covers alot of the southern portion of the U.S. it's hard to get away from. It's actually kind of funny to see so many churches everywhere it's almost like fast food chains you can order whatever religion you want.  At then end of my street are 2 different churches sdown the road there is going to be another one. And I have met alot of highly intelligent scientist also that have strong faith and I credit them for helping me to think more.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *Hmmm.
> 
> "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
> 
> I believe that comes out of the Bible, which many people will say is the word of god. *



The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to.  What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood.  I was trained to take things on faith.  Don't question.  Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes.  The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary.  Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness.  Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority.  If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar. 

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way.  The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.  


:soapbox:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply.  You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe.  I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.
> 
> That's why I don't usually engage in these debates.  I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.



Why don't YOU reread my post again? I rebutted you point by point. And showed the serious flaw of you assertion.  

Your dismissive attitude rivals your  narrow mindedness in this area.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I have no idea what that means.
> 
> You can spend the rest of your life to quote things out of the Bible that are wrong, inconsistent, wicked, bloody, self contradictory etc etc etc.
> You can also talk endlessly about how out of date the current Christian doctrines may be in some areas.
> 
> I do not wish to go into that.
> 
> If you care to, read the New Testament, not the Old Testament. *



That IS the New Testament.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by fist of fury _
> Well the bible belt covers alot of the southern portion of the U.S. it's hard to get away from. It's actually kind of funny to see so many churches everywhere it's almost like fast food chains you can order whatever religion you want.  At then end of my street are 2 different churches sdown the road there is going to be another one. And I have met alot of highly intelligent scientist also that have strong faith and I credit them for helping me to think more.



Heck, where I used to work, there were 10 churches between my downtown apt and my office. I walked past them every day. No one ever preached to me nor harassed me, except for this jerk who told me I was going to hell b/c I am a Catholic. *sigh*


----------



## Blindside

> ._Posted by qizmodius_  The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.



Yeah, I actually read that last week, but I hadn't had any confirmation on it so I didn't bring it up.  (It is also why it came to mind so fast.)  If they had kept the original hebrew "poisoner" term it is a quite logical thing to do.

Lamont


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.
> 
> But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to.  What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood.  I was trained to take things on faith.  Don't question.  Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes.  The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary.  Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness.  Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority.  If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.
> 
> Don't try to tell me it isn't this way.  The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.
> 
> 
> :soapbox: *


I've been there myself , but as I read the bible for myself and did more research I found that it doesnt push the don't question issue that's more of a church thing. I've learned more by questioning my own beliefs than just accepting things. I also attempted to learn about other faiths and see what they beleive and why instead of just assuming they are wrong.


----------



## Jill666

Hey Paul- well congratulations. I hope all goes well with you both.

As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.
> 
> But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to.  What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood.  I was trained to take things on faith.  Don't question.  Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes.  The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary.  Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness.  Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority.  If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.
> 
> Don't try to tell me it isn't this way.  The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.
> 
> 
> :soapbox:




Blame your parents!  Heck Christians children are taught that God loves them. Jesus loves them. The angels protect them. 

Growing up, I have not been told otherwise. I was warmed that if I broke the laws and commit crimes, there would be hell to pay.   I was never forbid to question nor to explore.  

I have seldom met religion organizations that are as close minded as you described. Granted there will always be a few nuts. But that is not the majority. 

Just what kind of churches you people have been exposed to? Don't you realize it is the nuts thumbing the Bible "invoking God's name in vain" that is the source of the problems? and not religion itself.

To use your analogy.   In martial art, a knife hand to the wind pipe is a death blow.  It is a fact.  Now if some crooks learn that and kill someone with a knife hand that crushed the windpipe. Does that make the martial art evil?    ENLIGHTEN ME PLEASE!!


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Why don't YOU reread my post again? I rebutted you point by point. And showed the serious flaw of you assertion.
> 
> Your dismissive attitude rivals your  narrow mindedness in this area. *



As Blindside already pointed out, you didn't rebut my points, you simply disagreed, vehemently in some cases.  The dismissive attitude was yours, not mine, and is unfortunately all too common.  Again, I would suggest that, in order to avoid being stereotyped, don't respond in a stereotypical way.

Regarding my reference to peoples' beliefs about atheists, I admit to exaggerating quite a bit.  To be more precise, and less inflammatory, I should have stated it thus: The vast majority of people in this country believe that atheists are immoral.  There are, demonstrably so, large subgroups of believers that hold additional beliefs about atheists, including the ones that I mentioned.  Our illustrious president's own father once suggested that atheists like myself should not be considered as citizens of this country during his presidential campaign.  There are probably between 20 and 40 million atheists in our country right now, but how often do you ever see any of us actually speak up?  I can assure you, it isn't due to any additional apathy beyond the current background level in this country.  What do you think would happen to a political candidate who admitted to being an atheists, even if he/she had an outstanding record of philanthropy, generosity, and general morality?

And as usual, in a discussion where folks were asked to reveal their beliefs, the atheists are attacked, simply because they do not share your beliefs.  I've found, that my simple existence is offensive to many people.

Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts.  All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS.  You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person.  Whose fault is that?

Finally, your accusation of narrow-mindedness on my part is extraordinarily ironic.  You, I'm sure, won't agree.


----------



## Blindside

> As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.



Last 24 hours?  Hah, I think most of this thread has happened this morning.  Oh, yeah this is really helping my work productivity, I'll just have to work late tonight. 

Lamont


----------



## Cruentus

> Hey Paul- well congratulations. I hope all goes well with you both.
> 
> As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.



Actually, this debate flared up within about the last hour or so. I was at work writing a response to you, and by the time I got around to posting, there where pages of writing in fromt of me.

Guys slow down! I have to catch up here! :CTF:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by fist of fury _...
> I've been there myself , but as I read the bible for myself and did more research I found that it doesnt push the don't question issue that's more of a church thing......




Exactly.  It is the people. Not the religion itself.  The religion itself cannot do anything, any more than a martial art can go out and hurt someone, or a gun walking down the street to shoot someone.   

It is the nuts using these tools to cause problems.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Blame your parents!  Heck Christians children are taught that God loves them. Jesus loves them. The angels protect them.
> 
> Growing up, I have not been told otherwise. I was warmed that if I broke the laws and commit crimes, there would be hell to pay.   I was never forbid to question nor to explore.
> 
> I have seldom met religion organizations that are as close minded as you described. Granted there will always be a few nuts. But that is not the majority.
> 
> Just what kind of churches you people have been exposed to? Don't you realize it is the nuts thumbing the Bible "invoking God's name in vain" that is the source of the problems? and not religion itself.
> 
> To use your analogy.   In martial art, a knife hand to the wind pipe is a death blow.  It is a fact.  Now if some crooks learn that and kill someone with a knife hand that crushed the windpipe. Does that make the martial art evil?    ENLIGHTEN ME PLEASE!! *



That's somewhat appropriate, but the real question is this:  Does the intent or the "evilness" of the person diminish the damage done by the weapon?  It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon.  But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die.  And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.

I'm not speaking of religious nuts here.  My experience is quite mainstream.  My family are as non-nutty as you can imagine.  They're simple, lower-middle-class American Roman Catholics.  Nothing weird, nothing crazy, just simple believers who brought me up the same way they were brought up.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> As Blindside already pointed out, you didn't rebut my points, you simply disagreed, vehemently in some cases.  The dismissive attitude was yours, not mine, and is unfortunately all too common.  Again, I would suggest that, in order to avoid being stereotyped, don't respond in a stereotypical way.
> 
> Regarding my reference to peoples' beliefs about atheists, I admit to exaggerating quite a bit.  To be more precise, and less inflammatory, I should have stated it thus: The vast majority of people in this country believe that atheists are immoral.  There are, demonstrably so, large subgroups of believers that hold additional beliefs about atheists, including the ones that I mentioned.  Our illustrious president's own father once suggested that atheists like myself should not be considered as citizens of this country during his presidential campaign.  There are probably between 20 and 40 million atheists in our country right now, but how often do you ever see any of us actually speak up?  I can assure you, it isn't due to any additional apathy beyond the current background level in this country.  What do you think would happen to a political candidate who admitted to being an atheists, even if he/she had an outstanding record of philanthropy, generosity, and general morality?
> 
> And as usual, in a discussion where folks were asked to reveal their beliefs, the atheists are attacked, simply because they do not share your beliefs.  I've found, that my simple existence is offensive to many people.
> 
> Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts.  All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS.  You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person.  Whose fault is that?
> 
> Finally, your accusation of narrow-mindedness on my part is extraordinarily ironic.  You, I'm sure, won't agree.



May be you should reread your post again. You are attacking religion and religious people as a group. You sugar-coated it by calling  that "expressing your view".   To you, that absorb you and allow you to claim self righteousness.  No one here attack atheists, other than rebutting atheists attack on us.  All the posts here are basically atheists attacking religions and religious people.  Your victimization mentality is clouding your view.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Actually, this debate flared up within about the last hour or so. I was at work writing a response to you, and by the time I got around to posting, there where pages of writing in fromt of me.
> 
> Guys slow down! I have to catch up here! :CTF: *



Sorry.  This is what happens when I have to spend too much time compiling large amounts of code. 

Either that or I practice techniques in my office.  That gets me weird looks.  Especially Fleeing Chicken, since I need a bit of hallway space for that.


----------



## Jill666

Well any religion, like any other system created by men will be faulty, since we are faulty. I'm leery of any religion at this point as all have people at their head. "Men are weak". Maybe so. 

True, faith in the hands of people can become a very ugly thing, manifesting in the weirdest ways. So what do we do? I've chosen to do nothing. Maybe not the best choice, and very unpopular with my family, but I can't buy into a religion wholesale, and really don't get anything out of showing up at a structure to do my own worshipping, since I don't believe in God.

Although I don't necessarily disbelieve in God- I do not call myself an atheist. I can't say I'd never return to Christianity. I do believe in chemistry. I find the human body an amazing thing, and trained in western medicine I enjoy healing it. I do feel there is a life force or chi, and am trying to learn more about that aspect. That doen't make me a Buddhist. I believe there is power in the earth itself, and anyone who has spent the night in a forest will know what I mean. That doesn't make me a Wiccan or Pagan, but there is a system of beliefs there I feel makes a lot of sense.

Meanwhile, I study ECG interpretation, give medicines and change dressings, I encourage my patients to go to activities and call their minister when they are dying. And I learn how to inflict pain or injury even to death, so I can keep living. If I live long enough, maybe I find something I can believe in with all my heart.

Maybe not.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> That's somewhat appropriate, but the real question is this:  Does the intent or the "evilness" of the person diminish the damage done by the weapon?  It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon.  But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die.  And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.
> 
> I'm not speaking of religious nuts here.  My experience is quite mainstream.  My family are as non-nutty as you can imagine.  They're simple, lower-middle-class American Roman Catholics.  Nothing weird, nothing crazy, just simple believers who brought me up the same way they were brought up.



What are you talking about? What kind of religion that teaches children that they are unworthy?  Something is seriously wrong in your household. Don't blame it on the Roman Catholic Church or any church, for that matter.

The first paragraph is ******** and you know it.  Just admit that the intent of the religion is good, only that evil people distort it to cover their own evil design. 

As I have stated, it is the people who are responsible for the problems, and NOT religion itself. It is the people who distort the intent of religion to feed their own crooked design. It is the criminals who misused martial art to maim and kill. It is the criminals who fire the bullets that kills.


----------



## Jill666

Actually, those weird looks are probably a good thing. 

Gotta keep those office dwellers on their toes.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *May be you should reread your post again. You are attacking religion and religious people as a group. You sugar-coated it by calling  that "expressing your view".   To you, that absorb you and allow you to claim self righteousness.  No one here attack atheists, other than rebutting atheists attack on us.  All the posts here are basically atheists attacking religions and religious people.  Your victimization mentality is clouding your view. *



You're partially correct.  I'll agree that I'm expressing opinions that attack religions and religious thought patterns.  I'm most certainly NOT attacking religious people, other than disagreeing with them.

I should say, that it isn't everyone here attacking atheists, but rather YOU.  There are plenty of other believers here that didn't pop off like a rocket when an atheist dared to express their opinions.  You, however, took it personally.  You claimed we were ignorant and arrogant, and then got offended when I, and some others, chose to respond.

It's probably best we discontinue this particular thread of contention.  We're on a path that has no conclusion but hurt feelings, and I'm not interested in that.  

I want to point out that I don't claim to be the final arbiter of all that is known and will be known.  I'm as full of faults and frailties and failures as the next person.  I'm wrong all the time and have no problem admitting when I don't know the answer to something.  Everyone has boughts of self-righteousness, and I'm certainly no exception.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *What are you talking about? What kind of religion that teaches children that they are unworthy?  Something is seriously wrong in your household. Don't blame it on the Roman Catholic Church or any church, for that matter.
> 
> The first paragraph is ******** and you know it.  Just admit that the intent of the religion is good, only that evil people distort it to cover their own evil design.
> 
> As I have stated, it is the people who are responsible for the problems, and NOT religion itself. It is the people who distort the intent of religion to feed their own crooked design. It is the criminals who misused martial art to maim and kill. It is the criminals who fire the bullets that kills. *



What is original sin?  (Roman catholic centric, I know).


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Jill666 _
> *
> 
> If I live long enough, maybe I find something I can believe in with all my heart.
> 
> Maybe not. *



Maybe you don't need it.  When I left religious activities behind, there was no hole in my life.  When I realized I didn't believe in God, there was no hole in my thoughts and in my feelings.  Religion and theism was grafted onto me, it wasn't a part of me.


----------



## Blindside

> What are you talking about? What kind of religion that teaches children that they are unworthy? Something is seriously wrong in your household. Don't blame it on the Roman Catholic Church or any church, for that matter.



In the Roman Catholic church you need to be cleansed of your sins by a priest, and the way sins are set up, you can't be human and not sin.  (The definition of the word sin is "to miss the mark.")  According to church doctrine if you are not clean you cannot go to heaven, that is the purpose of the last rites.  

In most protestant Christianity it is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior that will act as the cleansing agent or filter when you go to heaven.   

Either way, both sects teach that you can't be human and be acceptable to heaven without doing something extra.  Following that chain of logic, a human being simply human is not worthy of heaven.

Lamont


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

@ Qiz

No. I only state that you are wrong and ignorant in your attack on religion and religious people. I don't condemn atheists for their belief. Never did I once state that atheists are to be condemned for what they believe.  I am only pissed that when atheists are telling me what I think, or what I believe, when they have no idea what I think or believe.  I don't pound on you for how you want to live your life, rather you have no business in telling me how I am living my life.

I have been saying that you are wrong in generalizing religious people as mindless idiots who can't think for themselves. And you are wrong in condemning religion for the crimes committed by people who misused religion.

Did you see me condemning the atheist's way of life?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> In the Roman Catholic church you need to be cleansed of your sins by a priest, and the way sins are set up, you can't be human and not sin.  (The definition of the word sin is "to miss the mark.")  According to church doctrine if you are not clean you cannot go to heaven, that is the purpose of the last rites.
> 
> In most protestant Christianity it is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior that will act as the cleansing agent or filter when you go to heaven.
> 
> Either way, both sects teach that you can't be human and be acceptable to heaven without doing something extra.  Following that chain of logic, a human being simply human is not worthy of heaven.
> 
> Lamont



Sure, some nuts will adhere to that, by the book. Today, the Roman Catholic church does not judge.  If your heart is clean, you will not be condemned. If your remorse is sincere, you are forgiven.  By the way, religion is not just about finding a place to go after you check out!  Heck no. There is a lot more than that. How you live your life on earth is of paramount importance.   Love thy neighbors are not empty words (although some people take that too literally  )  You have a mission in this life, not just screw around and check into paradise later.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *In the Roman Catholic church you need to be cleansed of your sins by a priest, and the way sins are set up, you can't be human and not sin.  (The definition of the word sin is "to miss the mark.")  According to church doctrine if you are not clean you cannot go to heaven, that is the purpose of the last rites.
> 
> In most protestant Christianity it is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior that will act as the cleansing agent or filter when you go to heaven.
> 
> Either way, both sects teach that you can't be human and be acceptable to heaven without doing something extra.  Following that chain of logic, a human being simply human is not worthy of heaven.
> 
> Lamont *



Exactly my point.  Thanks for expressing it so succinctly.  One of these days, I'll figure out how to do this!


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *
> @ Qiz
> 
> No. I only state that you are wrong and ignorant in your attack on religion and religious people. I don't condemn atheists for their belief. Never did I once state that atheists are to be condemned for what they believe.  I am only pissed that when atheists are telling me what I think, or what I believe, when they have no idea what I think or believe.  I don't pound on you for how you want to live your life, rather you have no business in telling me how I am living my life.
> 
> *



You said atheists were arrogant and narrow-minded, who rejected god-belief out of ignorance.  I never claimed anything about YOU personally, nor did I have anything to say about how you live your life.  It is not my fault that you took my explanations concerning MY beliefs as a personal attack on YOU.




> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *
> 
> I have been saying that you are wrong in generalizing religious people as mindless idiots who can't think for themselves. And you are wrong in condemning religion for the crimes committed by people who misused religion.
> 
> *



You are putting words in my mouth (ok, on my monitor).  But, I will say, that you cannot separate religion from the crimes, since it is the religion itself, and it's power structures, that enable it's misuse.  In fact, I submit that the misuse of religion is actually part of what gives it such power as it has and has had in the past.



> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *
> 
> 
> Did you see me condemning the atheist's way of life? *



I saw you condemning atheists as ignorant and arrogant.  I never condemned your way of life.

Oh, and you are absolutely incorrect about the church's teachings on original sin.  Allowing the possibility that a person can escape their human heritage of "sin" is not any kind of a change in their teachings, just a modern waffling on the subject so they won't be viewed as bigotted against non-Catholics.


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *
> Either way, both sects teach that you can't be human and be acceptable to heaven without doing something extra.  Following that chain of logic, a human being simply human is not worthy of heaven.
> 
> Lamont *


To throw some more coals on the fire

Is it so hard to except that humanity is flawed? Isn't that what other religions that have a beleif in reincarnation basically teach? That you are reincarnated to atone for sins of the past to eventually reach enlightenment,nirvana,etc....?


----------



## Blindside

> Today, the Roman Catholic church does not judge.



Errr, what?

Wasn't the 1996 Papal Convocation that decided that sex WITHIN marriage, that was not expressly for the purpose of conceiving children, was "in moderation" not a sin?

That sounds like judgement, it sounds like judgement of the most minute parts of a Roman Catholics life.

The Roman Catholic church is most certainly not in the business of rubber stamping someone's passport to heaven.  A homosexual with a pure heart is not considered pure, nor a murderer.  The Church passes judgement on what is and is not acceptable.  That is the very reason for its existence.

Lamont


----------



## Jill666

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Sex that leads to Hell isn't safe". Implying that exramarital sex or homosexual sex will result in you going to hell. I couldn't believe someone would want to put a judgement like that on their car. It made me so nuts, I started to rip it off, then realized I may actually be caught and arrested for some stupid property crime because of this jackass. :angry: 

The fact that a church feels it appropriate to make a judgement like that is just the knid of thing that drives me further away. Of course, anyone has the right to believe what they want and put it on their car. Too bad it's something so hateful.


----------



## Blindside

> Is it so hard to except that humanity is flawed? Isn't that what other religions that have a beleif in reincarnation basically teach? That you are reincarnated to atone for sins of the past to eventually reach enlightenment,nirvana,etc....?



I don't have any problem with humans being flawed, how can a collection of cells driven by a collection of neurons be considered perfect?  Look at all of the useless accessories we are provided with, a completely useless organ in the appendix, patches of hair on our underarms and groin that don't have any insulative properties, and an overly large brain that gets us into silly debates like this.

Perfect, naw, but it is up to us to muddle through the best we can.

Lamont

_edited to add another quote_ 

The distinctive human problem from time immemorial has been the need to spiritualize human life, to lift it onto a special immortal plane, beyond the cycles of life and death that characterize all other organisms.
	~Ernest Becker


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *I don't have any problem with humans being flawed, how can a collection of cells driven by a collection of neurons be considered perfect?  Look at all of the useless accessories we are provided with, a completely useless organ in the appendix, patches of hair on our underarms and groin that don't have any insulative properties, and an overly large brain that gets us into silly debates like this.
> 
> Perfect, naw, but it is up to us to muddle through the best we can.
> 
> Lamont
> 
> edited to add another quote
> 
> The distinctive human problem from time immemorial has been the need to spiritualize human life, to lift it onto a special immortal plane, beyond the cycles of life and death that characterize all other organisms.
> ~Ernest Becker *



Debate are good though they really make think,well most in most cases.
Besides You just don't realize that I'm right and everyone else here is wrong and if you disagree with that well... your wrong again.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> Errr, what?
> 
> Wasn't the 1996 Papal Convocation that decided that sex WITHIN marriage, that was not expressly for the purpose of conceiving children, was "in moderation" not a sin?
> 
> That sounds like judgement, it sounds like judgement of the most minute parts of a Roman Catholics life.
> 
> The Roman Catholic church is most certainly not in the business of rubber stamping someone's passport to heaven.  A homosexual with a pure heart is not considered pure, nor a murderer.  The Church passes judgement on what is and is not acceptable.  That is the very reason for its existence.
> 
> Lamont



Jesus!!  You were talking about the last rite and all, regarding passport to heavan.   So, I was referring to the fact that, if you ask the Church if your uncle on his deathbed is going to heavan or hell, you will be told that ONLY God can judge and that the Church will not judge him.  The Church will not say "Pay for this last rite and he is good to go, buddy!"   Neither will the Church says "Your homo uncle is gonna rot in hell, buddy"


"..The Church passes judgement on what is and is not acceptable.  That is the very reason for its existence...."

WRONG!  You don't know what you are talking about, with such exaggerated simplification. I don't even know where to begin to correct you, less this turns into an evangelical adventure.  Since you have already decided Christianity isn't for you, I am not going to waste my time.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Jill666 _
> I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Sex that leads to Hell isn't safe". Implying that exramarital sex or homosexual sex will result in you going to hell. I couldn't believe someone would want to put a judgement like that on their car. It made me so nuts, I started to rip it off, then realized I may actually be caught and arrested for some stupid property crime because of this jackass. :angry:
> 
> The fact that a church feels it appropriate to make a judgement like that is just the knid of thing that drives me further away. Of course, anyone has the right to believe what they want and put it on their car. Too bad it's something so hateful.


Look, in this country, you can go register your own Church today as a tax-exempt religious organization. Then you can appoint your self the founder of your religion. You can write your own Bible or interpret the Bible anyway you want, as long as you don't practice anything that violate the penal codes.  

People should not attribute every nut case to Christianity.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Folks, I'm a little late checking in on this party, but going with the intent of the original poster, 


> P.s Can we have no religeon bashing here.....I just want to here views etc



can we tone it down a bit?  Everyone has their own opinions, and I doubt highly that anyone will change their opinions based on a few posts here.    This has become a hot subject, and we'd just like to see it stay cool and friendly.

k?

Thanks all.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *
> can we tone it down a bit?  Everyone has their own opinions, and I doubt highly that anyone will change their opinions based on a few posts here.    This has become a hot subject, and we'd just like to see it stay cool and friendly.
> 
> k?
> 
> Thanks all.  *



Was about to say.......It would be very helpful and make it easier to read over :asian:


----------



## Blindside

> Jesus!!



You know you just took the Lord's name in vain....



> WRONG! You don't know what you are talking about, with such exaggerated simplification.



Well, OK, it was a simplification.

Please describe to me what the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is.  In terms that a layman could understand.  Do you take communion or confess to a priest?

If so, why?

If only god can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Lamont


----------



## fist of fury

Religion and politics 2 subject that are hard to discuss without someone getting mad.


----------



## fist of fury

Ok how about discussing this 

The Nine Satanic Statements

from The Satanic Bible, ©1969

by Anton Szandor LaVey



1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence! 

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams! 

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit! 

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates! 

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek! 

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires! 

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his divine spiritual and intellectual development, has become the most vicious animal of all! 

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification! 



9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!


----------



## Cruentus

Quizmodus: I think that when you first posted your beliefs, you started off fine, but since your logic has fallen short, I think.

Given my history, I can absolutely state with all confidence that my lack of belief in a deity-concept is NOT based on ignorance. In my experience, the opposite is true.

Your assumption is that people choose religion based on ignorance. Then you proceed to broadly generalize people in religion. You forgetting that ignorant people are everywhere, in the religious community as well as outside. If you look around you, it would appear that there is no real correlation between ignorance and religious people. There are many religious people who are ignorant; there are many atheists who are ignorant. There are also religious people who are not ignorant, and atheists who are no ignorant as well. So to say imply that People choose religion out of ignorance is faulty logic, because clearly ignorance and non-ignorance exists on both sides.

I do believe that religion is generally a crutch for people, for whatever reason

Could that reason be the same reason why you uphold your beliefs? Could your beliefs be a crutch? Could it be that by your desire to be better and smarter then the masses, you hold on to the idea that the masses are ignorant because they illogically believe in, as you put it

nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc. All of this can be directly traced to religious training. 

Your ideas certainly place you as better and smarter then all of us, now doesnt it? Is that your crutch? Are you fulfilling a need to be beyond everyone else? 

Maybe an alternative solution might be that religious people arent all illogically using religion as a crutch, or as a reason to feel superior, but that they are merely trying to define their own values and beliefs while trying to logically find a purpose in the world, and logically trying to find out how this purpose fits in with an explanation of the world, and they use religion as a means to this. That would also leave you with an alternative; that you are attempting to do the same with your anti-religious beliefs. For the alternative to exist for you, then you would have to acknowledge that the same alternative is there for the religious. This would require you to step down from the pedistal, however, and play on the same field as the rest of us.

Religion may occasionally benefit individuals, but such benefits are temporary. In the long run, religions can only do harm, both personally and on a global scale.

You can use bad examples of how evil people have done harm in the name of religion, but this fails to refute the ideas presented in the religions themselves. You can bring up an example of an immoral cult leader who claimed to be a Christian, and I can bring up Mother Theresa. Either way, neither of us are are argueing for or against the religion. We would only be discussing individuals within that religion. And to say that religion only benefits people temporarily is a faulty assumption with no evidence to back the claim; just as is your argument on religion only doing harm on a global scale. You broadly generalize while failing to look at all of the facts (such as the potential good religion may have done). That my friend, is illogical.

But then, it's much simpler and probably more self-validating to dismiss my beliefs and lack of belief as ignorance. That very neatly sidesteps the necessity to examine your own beliefs in order to understand mine. Examining one's closely-held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience, especially when those beliefs have been taught to you since before you you could speak.

But, are you not doing the same to people are religious? You have clearly dismissed religious people as being ignorant. I wonder if this neatly sidesteps the necessity for you to examine your beliefs in order to understand someone elses. The argument applies to you just the same.

I've tried to keep my writing as emotionless as possible, but this is such a touchy subject. 

Its a touchy and emotional subject for you partially because, as you said, examining ones closely held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience. Maybe that is why you sidestep other beliefs as well, maybe your just as afraid to lose your resolve or redefine your values just as much as the masses.

Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply. You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe. I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.

That's why I don't usually engage in these debates. I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.

Im sure you may consider your replies unique for most atheists, and Jonathans to be stereotypical. Does that make you better? Considering that it would appear that you are doing the exact same thing that you blame theists for doing (such as stereotyping, sidestepping arguments, using your arguments to put you on a pedistle above the masses, and using empty logic to base your arguments), I would hazard to guess that you are no better at all. Considering this, I also believe based on the structure of your argument that you use the ruse of reason to hide your underlying negative "emotion" towards the religious. If this is true then this is probably worse then argueing with emotion alone because you are lying to yourself. You see religion and religious arguements are not entirely emotional to me, but it certainly is to you, as you have proven with your own words. 

The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar. 

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.

You are taking a scripture out of context, and a bad example of bad people and using it for an argument against religion. That logic is just as faulty as the people in the middle ages who did the same; taking scripture out of context, and using faulty examples. Luckily for you people havent been killed by your faulty logic, but I would hate to see you in a place of power. 

It also sounds like your bringing up a bad example of how to expose children to religion. Is this something that you were exposed to? I know that I was, and it turned me away for quite some time. Hopefully your not using your personal bad experience to base your views on an entire religion. It would be one thing to say that you have difficulty with religion because of what you had been exposed to as a child. Its entirely another to base your belief system on your personal difficulties while trying to find alternative arguments for it all the while. If that is the case then what you are doing is no better then those who blindly follow what the religious say. For purposely going against what the religious say just for the sake of not following them (then finding later justification for your actions) is just as blind.

By the way, the unworthiness of human condition is an inherent Christian doctrine, but presenting it to Children in the manner you purpose is not. It does not and should not have to be presented in a manner that it scars the child. You also lump in unquestioning, unexamined faith which totally false in your pretense. It is definatily O.K. examine your faith, for open-minded doubt is the sibling of faith. Doubting Thomas wasnt the bad guy; he was still an apostle and saint. He just needed more convincing then the average person. Judas was (one of the) bad guys, who knew the truth yet sold out anyways. Get it straight.

Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts. All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS. You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person. Whose fault is that? 

Its YOUR fault, quizmodus. You blantently said that religious people are ignorant. Read what you wrote, and dont try to play it out like your posts havent been an attack to religious people, as well as religions in general. I am not offended by you, you are at least very cordial in your arguments, but that doesnt change the fact that you have been attacking all along.

It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon. But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die. And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.

Just as you feel unworthy today. This is why you have designed your beliefs as they are, to place you in a more logical and comfortable place, above everyone else. This is just my perception. I am very sorry that your experiences have been what they have. Please understand, once again, that the doctrine you refer to wasnt designed to make kids feel like crap. It was designed so that a person will have humility and recognize a higher power out there beyond himself, one that he must turn to for guidance. We turn to the higher power and other people because no one person has all the answers, and no one can survive completely by themselves. This doctrine needs to be presented to children when they are ready to hear it (not when they are too young), and with care so they dont get the wrong idea. 

Well, I think I have said enough. I dont mean to slam you, and I am not angry at you, or anything like that. Its just that you felt that the argument against you on this thread wasnt logical enough. So, I felt compelled to give you some logic from a different perspective. Im sure I havent convinced you to want to change your beliefs by refuting you, but I just hope that someone like yourself and others here who sound intelligent enough will keep looking for answers. You certainly dont have them all, nor do I. Just keep searching, and dont brush off ideas because of your predispostition against them due to bad experience, or because youve looked into it before.

And, keep writing them codes, and practicing in your office! I dont write code, but I practice in my office just the same!    

PAUL


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> You said atheists were arrogant and narrow-minded, who rejected god-belief out of ignorance.  I never claimed anything about YOU personally, nor did I have anything to say about how you live your life.  It is not my fault that you took my explanations concerning MY beliefs as a personal attack on YOU.


WRONG!  I said, atheists are ignorant and arrogant * in their presumptuous condemnation of people they don't even know,based on these people's belief *.  I never have any problem with what your accept or reject for yourself.  OTOH, your disparaging remark about the majority of people as being hateful, needing a crutch, incapable of independent thinking, subject to manipulation by religion. Now, how can any one take that as an insult?  



> You are putting words in my mouth (ok, on my monitor).  But, I will say, that you cannot separate religion from the crimes, since it is the religion itself, and it's power structures, that enable it's misuse.  In fact, I submit that the misuse of religion is actually part of what gives it such power as it has and has had in the past.


Does misuse of guns make guns evil? Does misuse of martial art make martial art evil?  Heck. Neither can you separate these from the crimes. It is the inherent firepower of the firearms and the killing power of martial art that make them powerful too!


> I saw you condemning atheists as ignorant and arrogant.  I never condemned your way of life.
> 
> Oh, and you are absolutely incorrect about the church's teachings on original sin.  Allowing the possibility that a person can escape their human heritage of "sin" is not any kind of a change in their teachings, just a modern waffling on the subject so they won't be viewed as bigotted against non-Catholics.



Allow me to clarify that one more time. Someone's denomination or religion is NEVER EVER a concern of mine.  It is only important to me what kind of a person he/she is.  I have zero problem with atheists. I only have problem with them making presumptuous comment about people they don't even know based on those peoples' religions.

As for your comment on the heritage of "sin", I'll pass on that one, as you already think you know so much about the institition whitewashing itself already. So it is pointless.


----------



## Blindside

I think I'll go ahead and take a break here, besides its lunchtime.

Thanks for the debate all, I do wish we had more supporters of various other religions here.  At times I felt sorry for Mr. Napalm because he was outnumbered and outgunned.  To be fair to him his religion is one of the biggest and most obvious targets available so there is alot of ammo to throw downrange so to speak.  

I would be interested in the perspective of other religions, particularly Judiasm, Buddhism, or Shinto(ism?) but that is because those were the religions that my parents were raised in.  

Props to Fist and Qiz for being in this little match.

Lamont


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *@ Qiz
> 
> No. I only state that you are wrong and ignorant in your attack on religion and religious people. I don't condemn atheists for their belief. Never did I once state that atheists are to be condemned for what they believe.  I am only pissed that when atheists are telling me what I think, or what I believe, when they have no idea what I think or believe.  I don't pound on you for how you want to live your life, rather you have no business in telling me how I am living my life.
> 
> I have been saying that you are wrong in generalizing religious people as mindless idiots who can't think for themselves. And you are wrong in condemning religion for the crimes committed by people who misused religion.
> 
> Did you see me condemning the atheist's way of life? *



First, go back and read my original post for more information about me.

Second, In General Napalm, there are more people of faith / belief and religions that are condemning people for not believing their way, then there are non-believers who state that religion is . . . ,.

Why??? Well you see people believe because they were told to believe this way because their parents believed this way. This is not Faith by Choice as Paul as pointed out, but faith by guilt or blind ignorance. In my life I have seen more religious people / families / women who will tell me that " I AM WRONG!" for not being a "Fill in the Blank" and the go out and have un safe sex or get an abortion when their faith / religion does not allow this. You see us people on the fringe and the non-believers all try to just live our lives and some of us are good and some of are bad. Yet, almost every day we see priests and ministers in the news about driving drunk or an attack on a child, or know of some parishioner who is sleeping with another, yet they are not married to each other but to other people. Many times it is the people who scream the loudest about something that have the most to hide on that subject. The raving homophobe because he has some deep feeling he might be one, or the person who still is questioning their belief yet they scream down others so that they themselves do not get called  into question. The people who accuse their spouses of cheating are many times felling guilty and accuse their spouse of this act to avoid the challenge to themselves.

Now, Napalm this is not an attack on you, nor is it a condemnation of all religions, it just  a statement from what I have seen.

Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life. Now, I know you are not going to jail me. Yet can you deny that there are people out there that would like to get rid of all of us sinners. Or how about getting rid of all of the Non-Christians in the USA for our own security. So, on the points that evolution was Crammed down your or other throats, I ask for you tolerance on this issue. As I gave tolerance on the issue of separation of Church and State In the US Constitution, when it came to being FORCED to recite the Pledge of allegiance with "UNDER GOD!", Which was added back around the turn of the 19th to 20th century by religious conservatives. The same was done to our money. Personally I believe the US Constitution give you and everyone else the right to belief the way you want, just do not tell me I am wrong and do not tell me I have to believe in GOD on my currency and in my pledge to my country which was based upon religious freedoms as one of the driving forces.

If you truly desire to have a state religion and to determine the correct belief system, then you need to get a referendum. Now, I am not saying you personally have stated this, I am just making an argument here (* Look up Argument in the Dictionary *). If you the Christian desires that Christianity be the national religion please get it passed as an amendment to the US Constitution. Just becareful, since the Muslim Belief is the largest concentrated belief system in the USA. WAIT WAIT!, yes there might be a few more Christians total of you count all Christians, I just do not see all the Christians getting together and deciding that a generic Christianity is what is required. I know that the Catholics would not allow this. (* Sorry Paul et al *), yet They do not allow their children to be members of things like Young Life a generic Christian group for children. And id the Catholics pull out, I am sure the rest will splinter as well. I made this argument on another post here in the Lock Room.


My Point is that there are more Religions people out there who tell other religious people and non-believers that they are wrong and or doing it incorrectly and or condemning them to hell then the non-believers and fringe questioning people who are telling people how to act or belief.

Now Napalm thank you for being such a good sport and allowing me to direct this Diatribe at you, even though it most certainly was not a direct attack on you, only a response to many of your posts and the posts of others.


----------



## Cruentus

I just want to clarify a few things about Catholicism...

#1. The church judges what is a sin and what is not based on traditional teachings and scripture. It is _not_ and has *never been* the job of the church to judge individuals. Humans cannot judge who is going to heaven or hell, that is Gods job. Many people, including some practicing Catholics, are confused by this and often make the mistake of judging. You will not, however, find an ounce of Catholic doctrine that says it is O.K. to judge people, this is one major reason why I chose to be Catholic.

#2 The heiarchy of the Church is there to protect the doctrine and the teachings of the church, teachings which have been around since the churches existance. This goes back to the time of the apostles when St. Peter (who we claim as the first "pope") was trying to establish the Christian Church in Rome, St. Paul was evangelizing and "correcting" incorrect teachings that were being taught in the name of christianity in other far off lands (letters of Paul). This was a small example of "church heiarchy".

With a the heeiarchy, it is not so easy for someone to misinterprete scripture, or change doctrine to suit their needs, at least not within the church. This is why the heiarchy exists, it is the attempt by the Catholic Church to keep the teachings as pure as possible, and as close to those of Jesus. 

Now that I have clarified, blindside don't tell me "that's not what the Catholic Church does." I'm a Catholic, for crying out loud. That would be like you saying that your church believes God, and I say "no it doesn't because blah blah blah." You would be annoyed if I did that I'm sure, and you've done that more then once to Johnathan Napalm.

Everyone else....it was nice talkin to yea, but I'm out. It's almost 3 o'clock, and I haven't gotton a lick of work done. It will be interesting to see where this post has gone by tomorrow.


----------



## qizmoduis

I'm out too, for now.  I think I've said (and mis-said) enough for today, and I've got work to do too.  This kind of debate is just too darned enticing!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

@ Rich Parson
I have equal contempt for fanatics on both sides and in any religion, including Catholicsm.   You won't see me defending the recalcitrant religious nuts throwing Bible at people's face. You won't see me following everything Vatican says. Heck, you won't see that many Catholics following everything Vatican says neither.

On religions, * the biggest problem is people all too often mistakenly ignore the human factor as the culprit and blame the religion itself.  To me that is like blaming guns for murder, and blaming cars for accidents, or blaming martial art for assault.  Missing the point totally.* It is the morons and idiots and crooks and criminals and power hungry political hacks that hijack the legitimate tools for criminal activities.

In your post, you listed all these so called "religious people" , they are nothing more than "judgemental people hiding behind the Bible".    They interpret the Bible their own way and label it as Christianity.   Just because these people who call themselves Christian, make assertion and proclaimation in the name of Christianity, does not make it the Gospel truth (no pun intended).  You have to ask yourself "Is this the way God really is, as these people claim?"  "Would God disown you because you don't believe him?" "Would you parents disown you because you hate them?" Heck I am sure they wouldn't be thrilled about it, but they wouldn't put a contract out on your head!  Would God be less than your parents?

It goes back to separating Christianity from the human frailty that has distorted its teaching.

As for the separation of Church and State, that is worthy of another thread on its own lol

I just want to state that when I disagree with someone's views, it has nothing to do with the person himself/herself.  Reasonable people can and often do disagree on issues.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *That IS the New Testament. *



Referring to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

D'oh!  Sorry, this actually is the OT.  Exodus, to be exact.  My apologies.  Doesn't change this little phrase's place in history, however.


----------



## fringe_dweller

Damn the time difference!!!! Just got into work and look what I find - six pages of thread.

Just to add my 1c to this debate (australian currency being what it is) I find a lot of parallels between religion and martial arts. 
There are people from both systems who just go along and have a good time, there are those who are active recruiters (or religious/ma nuts if you prefer).
With ma/religion there are many different types and only some people within those types who seek to claim that their style is the best and only true style. Splinter groups have formed within styles, you have "mcdojos" and money grabbing churches (and just as not all kma's are mcdojos not all churches are after your money).

What does that have to do with anything? Not a lot really - just dawned on me how similar things are and thought it might provide something new to the thread.

Respectfully,


----------



## Abbax8

Well, OK, it was a simplification.

Please describe to me what the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is. In terms that a layman could understand. Do you take communion or confess to a priest?

If so, why?

If only god can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Lamont


__________________
If I may enter the discussion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Communion, The Holy Eucharist, is the True Body and Blood of Christ, and that HE instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This has been a teaching of the church since Apostolic Times. Confession also is ancient although it has gone through some changes over the milleniums. Basically it comes from Christ telling the Apostles "whoever sins you forgive are forgiven them. Whoevers sins you held bound, are held bound."By the way, if anyone trully wishes to know waht the Church teaches and WHY, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

                                                                 Peace
                                                                  Dennis


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *WRONG!  I said, atheists are ignorant and arrogant  in their presumptuous condemnation of people they don't even know,based on these people's belief .  *



Anyone else see the irony in this statement?


----------



## TLH3rdDan

wow! damn work lol i missed all this... well im not chiming in here for much but i think that one of the main points that someone brought up was missed back when this discussion... which is what does faith give you? why is faith important to your life? 

p.s. this is just out of curiousity and not meant to single out any one person or religious sect


----------



## Nate_Hoopes

Heres what i know about the whole religion thing... No one not one of us in the whole world can PROVE either side of the coin. However that being said, I dont believe in a god because one simply dosent make any sense to me, too far fetched, and i can equate all the bible stories or whatever you would like to call them as being simply stories of fairy tales.




That being said
I saw a comic a couple weeks ago, bizzaro to be more specific. I tired to find it but perhaps a description will do.

It showed two cave men running one carrying a spear, the other yells to him "No, Wait,  first we have to invent religion to justify our actions.... Then we invent war."

Just something to think about.


----------



## Blindside

> the biggest problem is people all too often mistakenly ignore the human factor as the culprit and blame the religion itself. To me that is like blaming guns for murder, and blaming cars for accidents, or blaming martial art for assault. Missing the point totally.



Your analogy of religion to guns or martial arts is flawed.  The problem with that statement is that a religion is made up of people, and it sets itself up to have some sort of morality or ethic.  So when said religion is twisted into violating those ethics it is a huge transgression.  A gun is ianimate, martial arts are a skill, religion is represents morality.  If a religion has a significant number of events in its history that transgress the bounds of its own self-described morality, then people had better start questioning it. 

To blame the flawed humans for being guilty of the bad things that were done in the name of the religion is a cop out.  If fifteen of my martial arts students go out and start randomly beating people up and maiming them, I will be looked on as a poor teacher at the very least.  Maybe I won't be found guilty in a court of law, but certainly in the eyes of the public.  And the counter argument of "but the art is pure" is feeble at best.

A religion that has numerous atrocities commited in its name had better admit that its teachings have several problems.  But instead those organizations cannot admit they were wrong, because then they admit that they aren't a good interpretation of the word of god.

Lamont


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

Rich Parsons:


> *Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life.*



What exactly is your source for that statement?  History records that Nicolaus Copernicus (also known as "Rheticus", due to his familial origins in Feldkirch, in ancient Rhaetia, Switzerland) died at Frauenburg, 24 May, 1543, from what appeared to be complications from a stroke.  He was at no time imprisoned by the Church, nor forced to recant his position on the heliocentric system; indeed, if it were not for the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, of Bishop Giese of Clum, and other leaders of the Church,  the "Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits" might never have been writen, his theory instead being transmitted secretly to his students as the Pythagoreans did.  Heilocentric theory only came to criticism seventy-three years later, when Galileo broke his agreement with the Church.  It was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index on 5 March, 1616, and reinstated in 1620 after editing.  The original manuscript was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and is in the family library of the Counts Nostitz in Prague.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

Blindeside:


> *If a religion has a significant number of events in its history that transgress the bounds of its own self-described morality, then people had better start questioning it.*



So, what you are saying, in essence, is that a large number of people violate the rules of a moral system, it is the moral system that is at fault, not those who violate it?  So, if a large number of people violate rules against murder, rape, and theft, it is those rules at fault, not the perpetrators?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Anyone else see the irony in this statement? *



Again, allow me to clarify myself (for the 10 thousand times).

Qiz has already made a blanket condemnation of religion and religious people.  So that part is already KNOWN. Henceforth, I was rebutting his statement based on this KNOWN fact.  It is ignorant and arrogant for atheists to make blanket presumption about people who they do not know.  I made no condemnation on atheists' way of life or belief, only a rebuttal to their presumptuous assumption regarding how religious people are.  Which, was clearly stated by the atheists in this thread. So there is no irony in my statement. I suggest you reread the whole thread again.

The fact is many religious people are rational , strong willed and in no need of a crutch and they are as tolerant and open minded as anyone else, if not more so. Christianity preaches hate the sin but not the sinners.  I myself are not that righteous. I am basically live and let live. Religion is not a big factor in my life. So when I read the typical comment from atheists, I tend to get annoyed. Who the hell are these people to tell me what I am and am not?  So.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Blindside _....
> To blame the flawed humans for being guilty of the bad things that were done in the name of the religion is a cop out.  If fifteen of my martial arts students go out and start randomly beating people up and maiming them, I will be looked on as a poor teacher at the very least.  Maybe I won't be found guilty in a court of law, but certainly in the eyes of the public.  And the counter argument of "but the art is pure" is feeble at best.....



HA!  look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then?  LOL  

Well, lets put that martial art on trial then.  Lets forbid people from learning that martial art then?  Lets outlaw that martial art then?

Your logic is leaking big time, my friend.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Nate_Hoopes _
> Heres what i know about the whole religion thing... No one not one of us in the whole world can PROVE either side of the coin. However that being said, I dont believe in a god because one simply dosent make any sense to me, too far fetched, and i can equate all the bible stories or whatever you would like to call them as being simply stories of fairy tales.
> 
> That being said
> I saw a comic a couple weeks ago, bizzaro to be more specific. I tired to find it but perhaps a description will do.
> 
> It showed two cave men running one carrying a spear, the other yells to him "No, Wait,  first we have to invent religion to justify our actions.... Then we invent war."
> 
> Just something to think about.



This is no different than someone who has no clue what Kempo is, but simply states that "I don't understand anything about it. It makes no sense to me. Therefore it must be some rubbish."  Brilliant huh?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by TLH3rdDan _
> wow! damn work lol i missed all this... well im not chiming in here for much but i think that one of the main points that someone brought up was missed back when this discussion... which is what does faith give you? why is faith important to your life?
> 
> p.s. this is just out of curiousity and not meant to single out any one person or religious sect



I would like to invite you to read these  threads.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5525

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5458

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5440

Hopefully the real life stories of people can shed some light.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

Johnathan:


> *HA! look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then? LOL *



While I agree that there is a serious hole in the logic of Blindside's argument, I must point out that your _ad hominem_ attack upon upon his character is in poor taste.  You cannot allow your emotions to direct your actions, no matter how justified.  Forgive my bluntness, but there is a cardinal rule to debate: No one will care if you're right if you're an @$$hole about it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Let me put this arguement the way I see it...

Everyone has a belief..even if that belief is to believe nothing.

Everyone is currently using the belief system that is currently working for them, or seeking out one that will.

There is a ton of misinformation out there, and much of it has been mentioned in this thread.

The original intent of this thread was to just ask 'what do you believe in?'  

It has evolved into theological debates, doctorine and more.


Go ahead and -discuss- things, but keep it civil and keep it friendly.  

:asian:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Dennis_Mahon _
> Johnathan:
> 
> While I agree that there is a serious hole in the logic of Blindside's argument, I must point out that your _ad hominem_ attack upon upon his character is in poor taste.  You cannot allow your emotions to direct your actions, no matter how justified.  Forgive my bluntness, but there is a cardinal rule to debate: No one will care if you're right if you're an @$$hole about it.



If you would kindly point out where I have attacked his character, I would appreciate that and I would apologize.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> If you would kindly point out where I have attacked his character, I would appreciate that and I would apologize.



Upon reflection, I suppose that it is I that should apologize, and clarify: it is not so much as an attack upon his character, as it is the tone you take in your responses.  By taunting your opponent, you turn the debate personal, turning it into a "me-against-you" situation, rather than an effort to ascertain the facts of the matter.  A good adadge to remember in such situations is "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar".

What I am asking is that you take a moment to reign your anger, and to try and treat your opponent with some charity.


----------



## TLH3rdDan

hummm so faith basically gives you a sense of security a sense of there must be a reason for everything in life correct? why then do you need a reason for everything? is is not believable that somethings simply happen and have no real reason or motive behind them? 

next topic... if its true that god, alah, jesus... whatever you believe in exists in all things why do people feel the need to build churches and attend sermons and choose to accept one persons interpritation of something that should be interprited by each individual? 

also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion? ussually trying to imposse that groups beliefs on another group... sorry for the spelling errors... in an after thought as im watching the horrors of american idol... maybe this whole discussion should be moved to its on thread?


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> hummm so faith basically gives you a sense of security a sense of there must be a reason for everything in life correct?



Well, that is hardly unique to religion; one of the basic assumptions of modern science is that all effects have a cause, which essentially means that there must be a reason X event occurs.



> why then do you need a reason for everything? is is not believable that somethings simply happen and have no real reason or motive behind them?



Because that would mean that the universe is essentially chaotic, and that contradicts the observable data.  Much of what occurs in the universe can be explained; the difference between religion and science is that religion generally ascribes the cause to an entity (or entities) outside the material universe, while science ascribes all causes to material forces.



> next topic... if its true that god, alah, jesus... whatever you believe in exists in all things why do people feel the need to build churches and attend sermons and choose to accept one persons interpritation of something that should be interprited by each individual?



Well, first of all, why do you assume that religious beliefs are something that should be interpreted by each individual?  Secondly, most of the organized religions around the world can point to their diety as having appointed an earthly authority to interpret and teach their moral and ethical rules.



> also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion?



I don't suppose you could back that statement up with hard, statistical proof?


----------



## TLH3rdDan

so billy bob down the street got word from god 2000 years ago to preach to the masses? and that would explain everyone and their brother starting a church? hummm well cant give you exact deaths from the crusades i wasnt there... hummm aslo how about 9-11... the spanish inquisition... the salem witch trails... need i continue?? and incase you havent noticed yes most of things in nature and the universe are in chaos other wise it would be quite predictable and boring


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> so billy bob down the street got word from god 2000 years ago to preach to the masses? and that would explain everyone and their brother starting a church?



Well, I doubt "Billy Bob" down the street claims he was here 2000 years ago.  But, for the sake of arguement- why not?  If "billy Bob" claims that the source of his authority to preach lived and gave that mission to his followers 2000 years ago, why should invalidate his claim?



> hummm well cant give you exact deaths from the crusades i wasnt there... hummm aslo how about 9-11... the spanish inquisition... the salem witch trails... need i continue??



Continue with what?  You made the assertion:



> also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion?



Yet you now admit that you can't actually give proof to your assertion; why then, should we believe that the bloodiest wars and attrocities have been commited in the name of religion?


----------



## Blindside

> HA! look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then? LOL



No, I'm willing to condemn myself.  And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive.  If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me?  I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.

There is no clear cut difference between the Art and the Instructor to the outsider.  Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church.  The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws. 

My example was not a good one, but I differ in your argument that you can seperate the religion from the people who worship the religion.


----------



## Blindside

> So, what you are saying, in essence, is that a large number of people violate the rules of a moral system, it is the moral system that is at fault, not those who violate it? So, if a large number of people violate rules against murder, rape, and theft, it is those rules at fault, not the perpetrators?



No, if a group of people who present a morality to the public and are then hypocritical enough to repeatedly violate that morality.  Then I would expect people to question the institution that presents the morality and to investigate the morality itself.

If congress unanimously passed a resolution to ban alcohol, and it lasted for ten years.  CNN finally breaks a story showing that congress was throwing friday night keggers for the entire duration, the public would question both the congress and the law.

This would be more of an argument against organized religion, than religion itself.

Lamont


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> No, I'm willing to condemn myself.  And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive.  If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me?  I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.
> 
> There is no clear cut difference between the Art and the Instructor to the outsider.  Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church.  The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws.
> 
> My example was not a good one, but I differ in your argument that you can seperate the religion from the people who worship the religion.



What you fail to admit  is that the art itself is not at fault. There is nothing wrong with the art itself.  Whatever fault there is, lies in the people practicing and teaching it.   

There IS distinction between you and the art.   You are NOT the art. The art is NOT you.  

The religion is NOT you. You are not the religion. The religion lives on with or without you. The art lives on with or without you.

IF you cannot accept this simple fact, then this is totally pointless. It becomes argumentative.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> No, I'm willing to condemn myself. And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive. If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me? I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.



Perhaps not, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the technical proficiency- the "truth"- of the art you teach.  An opinion- no matter how seemingly justified-is not necessarily a truth by virtue of its existence.



> Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church. The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws.



I don't suppose you provide an example of this?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> No, if a group of people who present a morality to the public and are then hypocritical enough to repeatedly violate that morality.  Then I would expect people to question the institution that presents the morality and to investigate the morality itself.
> 
> If congress unanimously passed a resolution to ban alcohol, and it lasted for ten years.  CNN finally breaks a story showing that congress was throwing friday night keggers for the entire duration, the public would question both the congress and the law.
> 
> This would be more of an argument against organized religion, than religion itself.



Again, you fail to separate the people (drunken congressmen) from the institution (congress) and the ideal (the law in this case). Clearly, it is the conduct of the congressmen that was the issue, not the institution itself, nor the law, in your example.

If you say there are clergymen who are scum and phonies and even criminals, I am not going to argue the contrary.  There are undesirable elements within the institution, and even the institution itself needs reform in many areas.  These are all human factors.


----------



## TLH3rdDan

:shrug: ok like i said i cant give you an exact death toll... sorry i dont keep track of those figures... so im assuming by your post that you believe those events happened for reasons other than religion? or perhaps no one died in them? or perhaps they were not cruel or did not attempt to inforce religion upon someone who did not believe in that religion? next so there really is no need to understand a religious text simply wanting to go out and preach is enough? so that would put us back to literal translations of say and eye for an eye.... or any other countless  passages... but thats all ok right? and are you saying that the common man is not capable of understanding the bible? thats what it seems you are saying by saying that god apointed people to preach it... i thought the word of god was for everyone not just a privaliged few to translate the way they wish and feed to the masses? hummm yeah that sounds like a good idea hummm that brings david karesh to mind... thats right he was the new mesiah right??? but hey god told him he was... so he must have been right... ohhh well i guess you win on that one... hummm now as far as this whole debate is going your not going to change your views and im not going to change mine... so i guess we will have to agree to disagree


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

Have you been drinking? That is just like my college roomate used to talk when he drank too much.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> ok like i said i cant give you an exact death toll... sorry i dont keep track of those figures... so im assuming by your post that you believe those events happened for reasons other than religion? or perhaps no one died in them? or perhaps they were not cruel or did not attempt to inforce religion upon someone who did not believe in that religion?



I never said that I didn't believe any of those things; what I asked is why we should believe *you* when *you* claim:


> also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion?



when you readily admit that you can't back that assertion up.  Care to answer the question?



> next so there really is no need to understand a religious text simply wanting to go out and preach is enough? so that would put us back to literal translations of say and eye for an eye.... or any other countless passages... but thats all ok right?



Isn't that exactly *your* position?  After all, you did assert:


> if its true that god, alah, jesus... whatever you believe in exists in all things why do people feel the need to build churches and attend sermons and choose to accept one persons interpritation of something that should be interprited by each individual



Exactly which side of this argument are you pursuing?


----------



## TLH3rdDan

ok simply cause you seem to be pushing the issue here is some info for you: salem witch trails http://www.salemwitchmuseum.com/learn.html 

"With the exception of Giles Corey, who was pressed to death, the following were hanged:  
Bridget Bishop
George Burroughs
Martha Carrier
Martha Corey
Mary Easty
Sarah Good
Elizabeth Howe
George Jacobs, Sr.
Susannah Martin
Rebecca Nurse
 Alice Parker
Mary Parker
John Proctor
Ann Pudeator
Wilmott Redd
Margaret Scott
Samuel Wardwell
Sarah Wildes
John Willard "

9-11: do i really need to post numbers?

crusades: cant find a death toll but here have fun reading up on them http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html 

lets see oh yes the spanish inquistion: http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm have fun reading that one.

anything else you need?


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

Well first off, I take the 300,000+ death toll from the Spanish Inquisition with a huge grain of salt; it certainly flies in the face of the research done by Prof. Henry Kamen, of the Department of Jewish Studies at the University of Madrid.  But for the sake of arguement, let's say they figure is correct.  Further, since we don't have figures for the Crusades, let's assume that it was roughly double that of the Inquisition, and then add the figures from 9/11 and the Salem which trails.  Rounded up, that equals approximately 1 million people killed "in the name of religion".

The National Holocaust Museum places the death toll of Jews killed by the Nazis during WWII somewhere between 6-12 million. 

That event _alone_ shows that your claim is, in fact, wrong.


----------



## TLH3rdDan

if you really want to bring up the jews... they have been persicuted by christians and muslims and many other religions for years due to the fact that they refused to change their beliefs... now im sure we could set here all night and look up facts about how many times someone has tried to erradicate the jews based simply on their religious beliefs or cultural practices... 

thats a nice rough estimation on the crusades death toll i would probably estimate it higher since most of the christian armies were between 20 and 100 thousand and since it doesnt make any claims to the size of the opposing armies which i would assume given the area incompassed by those lands it would be at least the same size as the christian armies... not to mention the countless civilians... ohhh by the way did you fail to see that these wonderful religious wars lasted for 200 plus years...so do i need to go back to the romans as well? when they began conquring the whole of europe and enforcing religion upon them? not to mention the current holly wars going on in the middle east that have been raging for centuries... all in the name of religion... sorry for limiting my previous examples to mainly christianity... they are not the only ones responsible... again this is an endless debate its been going on for a long long time before any of us were born... and i have a feeling it will continue long after we are all dead and gone...


----------



## TLH3rdDan

ohhh just a little side note on your figures there for the holocaust... dont forget that the 12 million estimation... includes catholics, handicaped, poles, slavs, homosexuals, russians, you name the race if they didnt fit the nazi ideal of perfection they were killed... by the way that ideal of perfection mean racial, political, and religious,.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

None of any of that changes the fact that it is the people who were responsible for the crimes committed, and not the religions. No religions preach hatred, and destruction.

Heck, your parents told you to clean up your room, study hard, work hard, don't do drugs, don't drink and drive. But you don't listen. Whose fault is that?  Yours!  It isn't your parents' teaching that is flawed.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Qiz has already made a blanket condemnation of religion and religious people.  So that part is already KNOWN. Henceforth, I was rebutting his statement based on this KNOWN fact.  It is ignorant and arrogant for atheists to make blanket presumption about people who they do not know.  I made no condemnation on atheists' way of life or belief, only a rebuttal to their *



But this is the problem--you're generalizing from a statement made by one atheist to the opinions of all atheists. The plural "atheists" and the use of "their" are the issue.

So, I still see the irony.


----------



## TLH3rdDan

and once again ill say that we should just agree to disagree... i have my views you have yours... im not going to change yours... nor are you going to change mine... how ever this has been rather interesting... but i need some sleep lol


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by Dennis_Mahon _
> *Rich Parsons:
> 
> 
> What exactly is your source for that statement?  History records that Nicolaus Copernicus (also known as "Rheticus", due to his familial origins in Feldkirch, in ancient Rhaetia, Switzerland) died at Frauenburg, 24 May, 1543, from what appeared to be complications from a stroke.  He was at no time imprisoned by the Church, nor forced to recant his position on the heliocentric system; indeed, if it were not for the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, of Bishop Giese of Clum, and other leaders of the Church,  the "Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits" might never have been writen, his theory instead being transmitted secretly to his students as the Pythagoreans did.  Heilocentric theory only came to criticism seventy-three years later, when Galileo broke his agreement with the Church.  It was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index on 5 March, 1616, and reinstated in 1620 after editing.  The original manuscript was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and is in the family library of the Counts Nostitz in Prague. *




DOH!

Please allow me to say I did not remember all the details while I was at work and unable to check references and being interrupted while trying to post. How dare them expect me to work while they are paying me? 

Seriously, it was Galileo who was condemned and convicted of Heresy. The execution of this sentence of life imprisonment was carried out with some sympathy and it was house arrest under direct inspection of the Inquisition! (* If you call that being sympathetic *)

Yes Galileo, did much work to prove Copernicus's works and theories. 

Check here :
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html


I hereby officially apologize for being wrong in my quote and stand corrected on that point only.


:asian:


----------



## MartialArtist

My savior is a Jewish carpenter

And all the wars brought on in the NAME OF RELIGION was in reality, brought on by human ignorance, arrogance, and just plain old stupidity.  People corrupt religion when they add a social hiearchy that tramples over the doctrine.  A rebuttal is that the doctrine is a result of the people, but to obviously contradict doctrine isn't right.  For instance, the Bible says "around the circle of the earth."  I don't know whether it refers to the shape, but other than that, it has nothing on the earth's shape, yet people drew conclusions from it and persecuted people like Galileo.

How many wars/deaths have been brought on in liberty's name?  A woman during the French revolution said something along the lines of that.  WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, War in Kosovo, War against Terrorism...  All have a general root on the idea of liberty.  Not to mention the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the American Revolution, etc.  But is liberty bad?  Or the people who do things under liberty's name?


----------



## Shinobi

My beliefs....


Coming in late here in the middle of debates. I believe I am God. Not THE God, or only ONE God, I am my own God. I look at my life like this: I can choose to act irresponsible, stupid, lazy, ect. OR I can choose to act Responsible , smart, ect. My parents never forced any Religion on me so I allways just Believed in what felt natural to me. Which is me vowing to do everything in my ability as a Human to do. If I act irresponsible, I root out the isuue, and correct it. If I lack knowledge on a subject, I Educate myself on it. 


I dictate my own life. For example, I make the rational choice to obey the Law, to show up to Work on time and act professional, ect. I treat others as they treat me. If they show respect towards me I reciprocate. If they choose to disrespect me, I stand up for myself. I allways try to do what is right.

I don't want involved in this debate, so I will say this. My life is mostly on a platform of non judgement. If someone chooses a different Path then me, as long as they leave my Beliefs alone, I respect theirs and leave it be. If for instance Jeff the Mechanic choose to go to Church every Sunday, that is great. He doesn't bother me, and in turn is given the same. Now if someone comes running up to me waving Religious material in my face bothering me, then I do judge them as a fanatic who is being rude. 


Act like a Human and show Courtesy and everythings fine. 

Just my view on things.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *But this is the problem--you're generalizing from a statement made by one atheist to the opinions of all atheists. The plural "atheists" and the use of "their" are the issue.
> 
> So, I still see the irony. *



Not only that, but I most certainly did NOT condemn all religions and religious people.  I did, however, express my opinion that religions are psychologically harmful in some ways.

That's not a condemnation of religious people.  If I wish to express opinions of religious (or non-religious) people, I will do so on an individual basis based on their observed behavior.

So, on to the current sub-topic: can a religion be held responsible for the semi-collective actions of it's adherents?

It depends.  Is the Catholic church of the middle ages responsible for the persecution and murder of Jews?  Absolutely.  It was doctrinal that Jews were directly responsible for the death of Jesus.  Churches, until very recently, were very real, and very very powerful political entities.  In many cases, they were more powerful than individual national governments.  They controlled every aspect of a person's life, from the food they ate, to the jobs they performed, to the sexual positions they were allowed to utilize.  Everything.  A person's position in life was absolute, because it was granted by God Himself.  A king was a king, and a slave was a slave, because God said so.  At least, according to the church.  It was doctrine.  It was extraordinarily powerful.  When Jesus said that faith could move mountains, he wasn't kidding.  Those with faith can be used by those who know how to manipulate that faith.  The evidence screams down through the millenia of religious-inspired violence to this very day.

You cannot separate doctrine from scripture, and you cannot separate the church from it's people.  You especially cannot separate a church's words from it's deeds.  Make no mistake, a religion isn't just a bunch of beliefs, but is in fact a power structure that operates on the level of those beliefs, and by manipulating those beliefs.

Is it arrogant of me to express this?  I don't see why.  Perhaps my delivery is wanting?  Is it arrogant when a christian claims to know, despite all evidence to the contrary, that an invisible, intagible super-being exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe?  Is it arrogant when a muslim claims that christians are wrong in their beliefs, for similar reasons?  Why is it often the atheist and/or skeptic that is accused of arrogance, for the simple fact of not believing in something that to him, makes absolutely no sense, or for showing where some beliefs are contrary to demonstrable and observable facts?

My stance on god-belief is quite simple.  The theist says: there is a god.  I respond: prove it.  Is that arrogant?  If it is, why?

I like Shinobi's response.  It's the way I conduct my life as well.  But if someone asks for my opinions or my beliefs, I will describe them.


----------



## Cruentus

One of the "problems" that the human race has had for quite a long time is the mixture of church and state. Religion gets blamed for this problem, but I would argue that it is not the fault of the religion, but the fault of the people who decided to integrate it into their government system, and use it as a means to control people.

Name almost any atrocity that "religion" by itself gets blamed for, and I'll bet that the atrocity was caused by a mixing of church and state. Remember, the Spanish inquisition was   _NOT_ the Catholic Church, or Christianity; it was the spanish government. The Crusades were considered a "religious war," but the reality is that Spain and other areas of Europe didn't want to get taken over by another Government system. Granted one group was motivated by "christianity" and the other "Islam," but that doesn't change the fact that it was two different government systems that were actually at ends. "Rome," ladies and gentlement, was also a "state" not a religion. 

Now, I am not saying that all religious leaders were innocent in these examples that I have mentioned, but I am saying that we need to look at ALL the facts. The FACTS are that there are more to blame these atrocities on then just making "religion" the scapegoat. I find that people often would prefer to make religion's the scapegoat, however, because it lessons the guilt they feel for not following any moral athority beyond their own desires. For these people, no amount of evidence can be brought to the table that will change their minds.

When keeping the idea of church and state in mind , I have come to realize that these atrocities were not because the teachings of the religions were flawed per say, but that people had decided to use religion for the pursuit of power and greed. Since most of the religions that were used in the name of power and greed (Christianity and Muslim faiths to be percise) teach against the pursuit of power and greed, it would conclude that religion, by itself, is not the problem. So, to argue that the teachings of these religions are "flawed," and that is why these atrocities have occured is an empty arguement negating certain key facts.


----------



## Cruentus

> You cannot separate doctrine from scripture, and you cannot separate the church from it's people.



This point is where many of the theists and non-theists (I am including agnostics and others, not just athiests) split. I would say that you CAN and you SHOULD seperate church from people....particularly GOD from it's followers and the church. God is one thing, a religion is another, and the people that follow are another. God, to me is the perfect creator. The Religion, to me, is a human way of trying to explain God, God's ways, the world, and how to follow God. Is religion imperfect....yes of course. Is it this evil entity that causes all of the atrocities in the world, of course not. Then there is people.....People are the most flawed, and it is the actions of people that cause bad things to happend. People, on the other hand, also cause good things to happend as well. People are, however, a seperate entitiy from a religion, or from God.

You, as well as others, would disagree. This is fine, and then it just becomes a matter of which makes more sense to whom; and hopefully we'll all find the answer for ourselves for sure. This, however, is the percise point in the arguement where many factions begin to split.


----------



## Blindside

> Remember, the Spanish inquisition was NOT the Catholic Church, or Christianity; it was the spanish government.



Um, no.  A papal bull by Pope Gregory IX put the Dominican order in charge of the Inquisition.  It was also charged with rooting out the Albigensien heresies, which were centered in southern France.

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Lamont


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> Not only that, but I most certainly did NOT condemn all religions and religious people.  I did, however, express my opinion that religions are psychologically harmful in some ways.
> 
> That's not a condemnation of religious people.  If I wish to express opinions of religious (or non-religious) people, I will do so on an individual basis based on their observed behavior.


Your selectivity is amazing. Even after Paul quoted your own sentence by sentence, you still don't get it.  



> ..  Is the Catholic church of the middle ages responsible for the persecution and murder of Jews?  Absolutely.  It was doctrinal that Jews were directly responsible for the death of Jesus.


Jesus was a Jew. His fellow Jewish establishment wanted to get rid of Him because he threatened their status quo. The Roman administration went along because they didn't care when the Jewish establishment wanted another Jew nailed. To this days, the Jewish religion rejects Jesus as the messiah.

A lot of nations persecuted Jews as well as other weaker races. Gypsies were persecuted. The Koreans were persecuted by the Japanese. The Okinawan were persecuted by the Japanese. Muslim persecuted Slavs. Spaniards repaid their persecution by the Ottoman. One of your forefathers might have participated in the prosecution of Jews and other weaker people. In the middel ages, every body persecute everybody else they could make a scapegoat or bully. That was the way back then. 


> Churches, until very recently, were very real, and very very powerful political entities.  In many cases, they were more powerful than individual national governments.  They controlled every aspect of a person's life, from the food they ate, to the jobs they performed, to the sexual positions they were allowed to utilize.  Everything.  A person's position in life was absolute, because it was granted by God Himself.  A king was a king, and a slave was a slave, because God said so.  At least, according to the church.  It was doctrine.  It was extraordinarily powerful.  When Jesus said that faith could move mountains, he wasn't kidding.  Those with faith can be used by those who know how to manipulate that faith.  The evidence screams down through the millenia of religious-inspired violence to this very day.


Again, for the 100 thousand times, it was the people running the church at the time, responsible for the problems. 

Jesus didn't teach any of those things you listed. The people running the church at the time came up with those things. These people acted like modern day power hungry politicians.  

The teaching of Christianity has nothing to do with this human misadventure. 

You cannot manipulate faith. You can manipulate people. People manipulate people.

"Beware of false prophets".  When false prophets use religion cover to manipulate the ill informed, the quilt lies in the false prophets, not the vehicle they hijacked.   

*Hitler hijacked patriotism to meet his end. Does that mean patriotism is evil??*

Of course not!  How can patriotism be evil in itself? 



> You cannot separate doctrine from scripture, and you cannot separate the church from it's people.  You especially cannot separate a church's words from it's deeds.  Make no mistake, a religion isn't just a bunch of beliefs, but is in fact a power structure that operates on the level of those beliefs, and by manipulating those beliefs.



You are simply being argumentative. There is no basis to your position. The people running the church in those times were history. The Bible is still there.  If your position holds any water at all, the crusade, the witch hunt, and the persecution of Jews  and all the evil deeds you have attributed to the church, ought to be still going on today.  The people would still be blindly manipulated like a bunch of puppets.  

None of those are still here, because the people behind the church are different today.  So the Church today is different from the Church in the past.

It is complete idiocy to cast the sins of the past onto the Christians of today. That is so absurd. 

Hey, some of your ancestors must be  blood thirsty murderous barbarians, just like those of ours. What does that have to do with you?  Nothing!  Or would you rather argue that you are genetically linked and hence you are scumbag?  lol


----------



## Cruentus

> Please describe to me what the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is. In terms that a layman could understand. Do you take communion or confess to a priest?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If only god can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?



Hey, you asked a good darn question, so I thought I would answer you in brief.

The purpose of the Catholic Church covers many grounds, but I'll give you the main purpose. Mainly, the idea behind the Church and the "hierarchy" is to try to keep the teachings of Christ as pure as we can in our flawed world. The church does this not just by scripture alone. I don't remember the exact spot, but I believe that in a letter of Paul to the Theselonians, Paul mentions that we must uphold our beliefs from "the Traditions we uphold, or from a letter of ours." One of the ways that Catholics differ from main-stream Christians is that we don't follow scripture blindly, or by itself. The Bible is a collection of writings that date back thousands of years, and is the original scripts where written in archaic hebrew or aramaic. You have to look at anything that was written down within the context and purpose of the writing. It is important to know when when reading Genisis, for example, that Genisis was a recorded legand which had been passed down for generations orally before written down, and ment to be taken as truth in a figurative sense, not a literal sense. But when you are reading the Gospel according to Mathew you are reading a historacle interpretation from the perspective of Mathew and his followers, and is ment to be taken literally. Or at least this is what Matt and his followers percieved actually happend.

So, Catholics are not scriptural literalists. We rely on scripture, but also tradition and proper interpretation. That is why the church is around; it keeps the truth and the proofs straight beyond what any individual could do on their own. And the hierarchy exists so that it will be difficult for its leader to change the traditions, or interpretations, keeping as close as possible to the intent of the original apostles. At least, that is the intent.

The Catholic Church has long been noted for having the longest standing scholarly study of Christianity that the world has ever known. The Church is also there to study Christianity, and interpret it to lay people as best as it can what it believes is truth. This is important to it's laypeople because an organization as large as the Catholic Church does much more of a thorough job then any individual could when it comes to studying Christianity.

The Church also exists as a place for people to go and worship, and as a vehicle for lay people to grow personally. These are the main purposes of the Church, as I can see it.

*Do you take communion or confess to a priest?* 

Yes, I do.

*If only God can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Church?* 

Good question also. God is the only judge, this is true. But the Church acts as a vehicle for interpreting the Christian belief system. A Priest has every right to tell me, "Paul, you know the church doesn't approve of you murdering people, and in fact, murder is a sin." The Priest has no right to say, "Paul, you know your going to hell of murdering all those people." There is a differance between interpretation (or "Judgement") of actions and interpretation (Judgement) of people.

*A side note about confession:* Some misconceptions about confession is that Catholics believe that you must go to confession to have your sins forgiven. This is not true. Another is that you are automatically forgiven if you go to confession. Also, not true.

Because (for arguements sake) Jesus is not walking around on earth right now, he had given his apostles the authority to forgive sins (check New Testament). Priests are just carrying out this apostolic tradition/authority. The Priest is acting as a mediator between me and God. Sure, I don't have to go to confession to be forgiven, but it's hard to get direct feedback just by praying and asking for forgiveness. And praying by myself doesn't always absolve me of my own feeling of guilt. When I want to get council from someone regarding my actions, I go to confession. It has a similar effect as a tribesman seeking council with a Shaman, or for a modern day contemporary paying big mula to go to a therapist. The differance is, when I go to a Priest I am asking for the Holy Spirit to see me through my sins, and the Priest is asking for the holy spirit to help him to give proper council.

And when I leave confession, am I forgiven? Well, that is truely up to God, not an institution, or another human being.

I hope I answered some of your questions. I am signing off, and I won't be posting again here until tomorrow. I have to limit my time on this forum, otherwise I'll never get any work done!

Peace...


----------



## Blindside

Thanks Paul, 

I posted that question, good response.

Lamont


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Blindside _
> *Um, no.  A papal bull by Pope Gregory IX put the Dominican order in charge of the Inquisition.  It was also charged with rooting out the Albigensien heresies, which were centered in southern France.
> 
> No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!
> 
> Lamont *



I know that I said I was signing off, but one last thing....

Um, yes.   

I need to check my history a little to get the details, but I recall the problems occuring when the Spanish Government got involved with Pope Gregory's attempt to curb some of the misconceptions, or "heresies" that were going around. I'm sure some of the Dominican Monks where as fault as well, but remember that this is a time period where news-papers, media, and internet weren't exactly flurishing. If a Pope who is in a building at Vatican City says, "Hey, wouldn't it be a good idea to send some people out to evangalize, to try to curb some of the misconceptions that are going on?" And then, certian government leaders, coupled with certain members of a religious order decide that this means persecuting and killing, the Pope nor his bishops even aren't necisarily going to find out about it, and if they do it is likely that A. it will be to late, and B. the extent of the detail of how the inquisition handled themselves may never be known by the hierarchy of that time period.

Keep in mind, that members and leaders of the "Church" will always make mistakes, because leaders of any religion are human beings. Remember St. Peter (named Peter from Simon; Peter means "Rock", and Jesus stated "on this rock I will build my church...") was one of Jesus's most important apostles. Yet, he denied Christ 3 times, and this is mentioned in all of the Gospels. He was also "corrected" by Paul in the New testament, who was of much lesser authority. We use these examples to understand that even the most important and worthy individuals will make mistakes. No matter how seemingly perfect, no human being is God. Same goes for any institution.

This doesn't mean that because someone, or even a group of someones, makes mistakes that this means that the religion or belief system should be scraped as being a detriment to society. That arguement is illogical.  Once again, the belief system by itself wasn't necessarily the cause of the mistakes that were made.

So, my point still stands: religion alone wasn't the problem, but the people who used religion, while at the same time blantently disregarding some of its key teachings, where the problem. This, as I had said before, often occured by mixing Church and State.

I really have to get back to work now, but if you have any aditional comments, Lemont, please feel free to state them. I will happily address them within the next day or two.

But, just remember, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" 
- Monty Python


----------



## Blindside

Regarding the founding of the Inquisition, it actually started at being aimed only at Christian heresies, namely the Albigensian and another (Walden something) heresies.  Torture was permitted as a means of coercion.  This is all under the guidelines put forth by Gregory IX, he also put an incredibly brutal man in charge of the Inquisition; Robert le Bougre.  There were Dominican inquisitors in Spain, but the focus was in southern France and Germany.

It wasn't until almost 250 years later and the reign of Ferdinand did the Inquisition become "the Spanish Inquisition." 

Lamont


----------



## qizmoduis

PAUL,

Good responses there.  Even though I'm no longer Catholic, I have often taken a stand against Catholic haters and have explained things the same way you did.

I do have to disagree about separating the church from it's people.  In Catholic school, they teach that the church IS it's people.  Without the people, there is no church.  There can be no separation.

There is no personal responsibility upon churchgoers shoulders for past atrocities.  That's silly.  A lot of people on MY side try to do that, but not me.  I certainly don't intend to give that impression, because such a stance is nonsense, and I think I've made clear in past posts how I feel about nonsense.  

However, I do think its important for people of today to understand the root causes of all that nastiness in the past, and even the nastiness happening right now.  

Oh, and you're absolutely right, that relgion ALONE isn't the whole problem, but I contend that it is one of the major root causes of most of our problems.  Just ONE out of many.  I think the world would be better off without religions, but only a little bit.


----------



## Cruentus

O.K....

I did some research on the Inquisition as an institution before it became The Spanish Inquisition. Ill give a brief synopsis:

Before the Inquisition, some of the things that went on leading to the use of force in the name of religion:

-	Empress Theodora had put to death multitudes of Paulicians: 10th Century
-	Emporor Alexius Commenus put to death Bogomilists: year 1118 
-	Louis VIII of France delegated punishment to those excommunicated: King Louis was decreed the year 1226.
-	Louis IX of France had fully ordered the burning of heretics at the stake: 1249
-	In Germany, the Mirror of Saxon Laws compiled around 1235 embodied as a law to execute unbelievers at the stake.

It is also important to note that in Italy under Emperor Frederick II, at least up until 1224, there was NO imperial law in Italy that mandated torture or stake burning for heretics. This was inspired by writings from Pope Innocent III, and Pope Honorius III.

Right around 1231, the Inquisition came to being. This was under Pope Gregory IX, who was elected in 1227 at the ripe age of 80. How and why the inquisition came to being is actually not verified in history, and historians and theologians have different theories regarding the matter.

 One thing that is historically verifiable, though, is that during the middle ages there was a constant struggle between the Church trying to maintain control over herself, and rulers and emperors trying to gain control over the church. These emperors wanted to have free reign and wanted to change church doctrine to do so. Due to the heresies that were flourishing in Europe at the time, one theory was that the Inquisition was instituted to curb not just the heresies that the people believed, but heresies that were propagated by the rulers themselves as a means to try to overthrow the Church to hoard power for themselves. This would also explain why Pope Gregory IX excommunicated Frederick II twice, AFTER 1224 when Frederick had instituted his torture and execution of heretics policy.

Now was Pope Gregory IX a softy to heretics? No. Records show that he knew of the evils that were going on with the persecution of heretics, but being imperfect and human he was focused on other things. He never mandaded that these evils be stopped like other Popes before and after him. This was his mistake, and no human is perfect. To his defense, though, he was 80 years old and basically having to fight a war, more or less, with certain rulers of states that wanted to overthrow the church. On top of that, death and torture for any crime was the norm in the middle ages.

So, it is important to reinerate that the torture and death penalties for heretics were instituted BEFORE the inquisition, and these policies where instituted by the GOVERNMENT who were the emperors of these countries.

It is also important to note that historically for its beginning decades the Inquisition did not prescribe or even allow torture and death penalties for heretics. The Franciscan and Dominican orders were placed in charge of the Inquisition because the hope was that they wouldnt be politically influenced by the worldly leaders and worldly laws. When the death and torture policies began, they were implemented by the government of the countries in where the heresies occurred. The Persecutions where carried out by the laws of the land, not by the Church itself.

As early as 1254, with Pope Innocent IV, the Church in fact prohibited perpetual imprisonment, torture, or death by the stake from the inquisitions. Similar mandates where given, in writing, by the proceeding Popes (Urban IV, Clement IV, Gregory X, Boniface VIII, etc.). The Laws of the Lands where the Inquisitons where occurring, however, would not allow these mandates to be implemented. The death and torture continued throughout the middle ages, but not by approval of the church. 


So.what did we learn?

Although I oversimplified the argument before, the point still stands, and now I am bringing proof to the table. These sins where escalated by mixing Church and State, not by Church alone. 

It is important that I clarify that no, Pope Gregory IX was not perfect. Neither was the Inquisitors who, at least after the first Century of the inquisition, probably knew that even though the church wouldnt be punishing the people who were on trial, that the government of the land would torture and kill those convicted after they had left. Some of these people didnt just make mistakes but they sinned very gravely indeed (in my opinion).

But it stands that these evils were in the hands of the people, and never once was it condoned by the religious doctrines of the Catholic Church. You will find no historical proof or doctrinal statements to prove me wrong on this point. 

Once again, you cant blame the religion for the human pursuit of greed and power. If religion wasnt used as a vehicle or reasoning for these rulers to pursue greed and power, then something else would have been used instead.


----------



## Cruentus

Thanks for your response. I respect your point of view, even though I (of course) disagree.

Where you think the world would have been better without religion, I feel that the world would have been much, much worse.

But  that is just my humble opinion....

 :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons

Paul et al,

Good post on the Inquisition. And when I mentioned it I did not mean that the Church was the only 'evil' of the days. I also did not mention the crusade on purpose for many of the points you mentioned.

Yet, my Question still stands.

Why does the Church think it can decide matters of science?

I mean Galileo was convicted of Heresy only because he wrote and published data from his research, that showed Copernicus's Theories to be accurate or at least to be the best model to date.

So, excluding the human factor of Pope Gregory IX and those that execute the orders of the Church on their own or with the support of the Church, why would the theologians of the day think they were better scientists? I admit that many a school / university was funded in full or partially by the Church, and so being could limit what was taught on those campuses. Yet, they saw fit to prosecute someone for having a different opinion themselves.

So, Let me ask you a question, were not the Romans and Jews the just as 'bad' for prosecuting Christ and the Apostles and Christians for their belief that was different from the norm of the day.


Let me ask another question of you Paul and the others.

Paul you posted that if you put a bunch of people of different beliefs in the same room and ask them questions would not the core be really close to each other?

I continue this thought with the following:

As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?

Could not God in his infinite wisdom wish to tell people his message, and the human in each case that was delivered the message did their best with what they had?

Now for the Atheists, could not they also be on the right track? I mean assuming a normal person of course. I mean if they just live their lives as productive members of society and are good neighbors are they not also on the right path???

Usually they just do not want to be told they are wrong or need to be saved because they have not performed some ritual.

Here is a prime data point I use. Everyone asks me on St. Patrick's Day, where is my Green. Now if you are of Irish Decent and have done your history you would know that the Irish  flag has three colors. Green, White and Orange. Green for the Catholics. Orange for the Protestants and White for the Truce between the two. Being on non Catholic Irish Decent I resent the fact that everyone assumes I should wear Green, when the color my family should wear is Orange.  So, you see no matter how well mannered you and others are here on this board, every day we Atheists and agnostics run into people who condemn us with the comments and there words all because we do not believe as they do.

Well, that then leads to me stating I am bigger than you prove I am wrong by force, since I am too stupid to understand your way. This leads you to go get friends, and then I get friends with weapons and then your friends get bigger weapons and wars begin. All for the individuals involved yes, but all in the name of someone trying to convince others that they are right and that the others are wrong.


So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.

Now do I think that religion was a completely bad idea? No. Religion was a way to get society to adopt ways and laws that were beneficial to the survival of the whole. Yes many people took advantage of this. The Church did not have a celibacy vow until about 800 AD. The date is rough sorry. The reason was that there had become in existence dynasties of Bishops and Cardinals. The Church took measures here to correct an injustice. Fine, yet this vow was a MAN MADE vow, not a rule of the gospel.

Good Discussion
:asian:


----------



## white belt

Three questions to put things in perspective.

1) When is now?


white belt


----------



## Nightingale

> *
> 
> 
> quote: Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life.*



Galileo was the one imprisoned (he was sentenced to life in prison, but because of his age and ill health, it was commuted to house arrest) for giving more publicity to and expanding upon Copernicus's theory.  Socrates was the one who drank hemlock.   Copernicus himself seemed to be pretty much ignored.  He died at a ripe old age of a cerebral hemorage, and never knew what a stir his theories had really caused.


----------



## Nightingale

I don't believe in organized religion because:

churches are run by human beings, not gods.

human beings have their own personal feelings and agendas, and are inherently imperfect (if there's anyone out there who's never screwed up somewhere along the way, speak up now, cause I'd love to talk to you and see how you do it).

The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves.

I was raised catholic.  A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years.  He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well).  I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor.  To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.


----------



## Kirk

I agree.  Aside from the history of greed associated with 
organized religion, the individual parishes (churches) themselves
are nothing but "club God" where people constantly violate the
"judge not lest ye be judged" phrase of wisdom.  Even the
"progressive" churches are cliquish, and make others feel 
welcome.  

Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
change anything to sit in the house of God.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> I don't believe in organized religion because:
> 
> churches are run by human beings, not gods.
> 
> human beings have their own personal feelings and agendas, and are inherently imperfect (if there's anyone out there who's never screwed up somewhere along the way, speak up now, cause I'd love to talk to you and see how you do it).
> 
> The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves.
> 
> I was raised catholic.  A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years.  He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well).  I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor.  To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.



None of the problems has anything to do with the teaching of Christianity.  The problems lie in the human factor, as you said it yourself. "..The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves..". But nonetheless, you tossed out Christianity alltogether? Not that it is my place to judge you, except that I find your logic illogical


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> I agree.  Aside from the history of greed associated with
> organized religion....


Oh really..  Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?



> Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
> He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
> change anything to sit in the house of God


Oh really....  Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him?  Please do tell.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

There is a saying "God please save me from your followers".

I think that sums things up nicely.

Alot of folks have died over religion.  More so have died due to greed and political ambitions.

Witchcraft was an excuse in the 1600's to get rid of those you didn't like, or whose property you wanted.

It was used to remove groups that caused problems for the favored.

Buffalo just dealt with a 'visit' from a group called the 'Army of God'.  They hung out in front of a local womans center waving signs that said 'Call a Kopp'.  James Kopp is an individual accused of murdering a doctor (who performed abortions) while he was at his home, with his family.  He was shot to death in front of his children.  These are 'Christians'.

BS.

Folks like that use the idea of a religion to justify their own twisted grabs for a moment of fame.  David Koresh and Jim Jones used the system of religion to feed their own greed and desires for sex, power and wealth.  There was no 'God' involved.

Just simple human greed.

I've read the christian bible heavily. Its a very good book.  Theres a lot of guidelines for living based on the conditions of the day it was writen, and some very basic ideas that seem to be universal.

The Wiccans have a universal rule "Do as ye wish, but Harm None".

Christians and Jews have the 10 commandments.

Similar rules exist in Islam and the other religions and belief systems of the world.

There are certain 'Universal Concepts' that tie them all together.

Jesus Christ is a revered figure in Islam.


> Muslims believe that Jesus (also known as Isa'l-Masih, Isa bin Maryam or simply Isa) was born from a virgin named Mary by the power of Allah. He was one of the great prophets of Allah, like Moses, and the last one before Muhammad. He was not the son of Allah, but he was Allah's Messiah, and he will eventually return.



Hindus believe he was an avatar.


> Some Hindus go so far as to consider Jesus an avatar of God. (An avatar is an incarnation of God on earth, but not a unique one; Rama, Krishna, and Buddha are tradionally considered avatars. Some say Gandhi was one



Another source states:


> Jesus or Jesus Christ , 1st-century Jewish teacher and prophet in whom Christians have traditionally seen the Messiah [Heb.,=annointed one, whence Christ from the Greek] and whom they have characterized as Son of God and as Word or Wisdom of God incarnate. Muslims acknowledge him as a prophet, and Hindus as an avatar (see avatara). He was born just before the death of King Herod the Great (37 B.C.4 B.C.) and was crucified after a brief public ministry during Pontius Pilate's term as prefect of Judaea (A.D. 2636).




I disagree with Paul on a few points, but the only one that matters is this:
I think we are all right...or at least, most of us.  You can call it heaven, Elesium, Summerlands, etc.  You can talk of being 'born again' or 'reincarnated'.  There is a truth in there somewhere that is universal...we just get so hung up on finding that 'Right Thing' that we often times blind ourselves to the truth which is in plain view.

There is nothing wrong with Christianity...just the warped perceptions and actions of some of its followers...same is true of most religions.  Islam is a fairly non-violent religion....its just that certain groups have warped things based on greed, power, fear  or wealth to fan the flames of hate.  Both sides are guilty of this.  All in the name of a God who I'm certain wishes we could all just get along.  

I see good things in alot of the religions...but, I'm happily pagan.  One of the perks is Halloween is a major holiday, and, well, we got a heck of a lot of em....over 200+ to be certain.   Now...if I could just get paid on those days. 

Peace all.
:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> Oh really.. Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?



http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1518/13271


> Pope John Paul has declared the year 2000 a Holy Year and with that Catholics can once again "earn" indulgences in order to get into heaven faster. Catholics believe they must suffer, to attain a spot in heaven, and by suffering they earn indulgences which leads to a faster trip. ....... Last Sunday the Pope issued what is known as a Papal Bull (ahem!) This Bull contained the provision that indulgences may once again be "earned" (as opposed to bought as they were in the 16th century).
> 
> Back in the 16th century, the Catholic Church actually sold indulgences to people hoping to either get into heaven sooner themselves, or get loved ones who had died, out of purgatory. It was the German monk Martin Luther who took exception to this and on October 31, 1517 nailed a copy of his 95 Theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. He chose this day, in part, because November 1 was All Saints Day and he knew that the church would be packed. Martin Luther was opposed to the act of granting (much less selling!) indulgences because he was convinced that the Bible stated clearly that the earning/buying of indulgences was not necessary to attain a place in heaven. It was this act that touched off what we now know as the Lutheran Reformation. As you can imagine the Catholics were pissed. They wanted Luther's head on a platter and he was decreed a heretic. However, this non-suffering, Protestant, way of entering the pearly gates appealed to many people, and they told the Pope what he could do with his indulgences.


Theres more...its a tad sarcastic, and I have to verify a few points, but this basically agrees with what I learned in history class 15+ years ago.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> .....Yet, my Question still stands.
> 
> Why does the Church think it can decide matters of science?
> 
> I mean Galileo was convicted of Heresy only because he wrote and published data from his research, that showed Copernicus's Theories to be accurate or at least to be the best model to date.
> 
> So, excluding the human factor of Pope Gregory IX and those that execute the orders of the Church on their own or with the support of the Church, why would the theologians of the day think they were better scientists? I admit that many a school / university was funded in full or partially by the Church, and so being could limit what was taught on those campuses. Yet, they saw fit to prosecute someone for having a different opinion themselves.
> 
> So, Let me ask you a question, were not the Romans and Jews the just as 'bad' for prosecuting Christ and the Apostles and Christians for their belief that was different from the norm of the day.
> 
> 
> Let me ask another question of you Paul and the others.
> 
> Paul you posted that if you put a bunch of people of different beliefs in the same room and ask them questions would not the core be really close to each other?
> 
> I continue this thought with the following:
> 
> As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?
> 
> Could not God in his infinite wisdom wish to tell people his message, and the human in each case that was delivered the message did their best with what they had?
> 
> Now for the Atheists, could not they also be on the right track? I mean assuming a normal person of course. I mean if they just live their lives as productive members of society and are good neighbors are they not also on the right path???
> 
> Usually they just do not want to be told they are wrong or need to be saved because they have not performed some ritual.
> 
> Here is a prime data point I use. Everyone asks me on St. Patrick's Day, where is my Green. Now if you are of Irish Decent and have done your history you would know that the Irish  flag has three colors. Green, White and Orange. Green for the Catholics. Orange for the Protestants and White for the Truce between the two. Being on non Catholic Irish Decent I resent the fact that everyone assumes I should wear Green, when the color my family should wear is Orange.  So, you see no matter how well mannered you and others are here on this board, every day we Atheists and agnostics run into people who condemn us with the comments and there words all because we do not believe as they do.
> 
> Well, that then leads to me stating I am bigger than you prove I am wrong by force, since I am too stupid to understand your way. This leads you to go get friends, and then I get friends with weapons and then your friends get bigger weapons and wars begin. All for the individuals involved yes, but all in the name of someone trying to convince others that they are right and that the others are wrong.
> 
> 
> So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.
> 
> Now do I think that religion was a completely bad idea? No. Religion was a way to get society to adopt ways and laws that were beneficial to the survival of the whole. Yes many people took advantage of this. The Church did not have a celibacy vow until about 800 AD. The date is rough sorry. The reason was that there had become in existence dynasties of Bishops and Cardinals. The Church took measures here to correct an injustice. Fine, yet this vow was a MAN MADE vow, not a rule of the gospel.



I will just touch on a few points.

1. Try to separate the things that relate to the human factor. You only need to ask yourself if the issue at hand is what Jesus had taught us or it is the people running the church who created it.  Jesus said Love thy Father and love thy neighbors. He didn't teach about Inquisition, witch hunt nor crusade.

This is like if you practice Hapkido. But your instructor happens to be a crook with poor ethic and molests teenagers.  You don't ditch Hapkido. You ditch the instructor and his school. Blaming Hapkido would be illogical. But that is EXACTLY what people typically do when it comes to Christianity.


2. Some religious people are judgemental. Some are not. Some martial art people look at non-martial people with contempt.  But not all are that way.

There are honest, decent and honourable buddhists, muslims, atheists, wiccams (sp) etc. There are crooked and deceitful Catholics (although we are sure these are not true Catholics  ) 

Religious affiliation is like Mcdojo blackbelt. Anyone can have one for the asking. It says nothing about the character of the person.


Do I have special respect for truly religious people? Yes, for those who do not flaunt it but rather practice it out of their own heart. Just like I have special respect for martial art practitioners who practice the art quitely and do not flaunt their blackbelt or credential.  For when people do something out of their hearts, they have to be true to themselves. Every religion teaches us to be a kind and compassionate person. Just like no martial art teaches us to assault and maim people.


3. Ezekiel 25:17   "..Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...." I find this reflects the essence of martial art practicing.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1518/13271
> 
> Theres more...its a tad sarcastic, and I have to verify a few points, but this basically agrees with what I learned in history class 15+ years ago. *



Shame on you Bob. Talk about selective retention!  You conveniently left out what this "indulgence" is about.

Here is what you left out. "....As a Catholic you are encouraged to avoid smoking and drinking, give to charity (the Catholic Church?)[sarcastics remark is from the author], visit people in the hospital or in prison and you too can earn your way into heaven..."

There is this severe distortion of the intent of the Catholic church in this regard. The idea is that we must follow the steps of Christ in action, not in lip service. You must do your share to live up to "... shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.." to be "... his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...". 

The non Catholic christians believe in redemption by your own acceptance of Jesus as your personal saviour, ie redemption by grace.  The Catholics emphasize redemption by deed.  In their truest sense, both routes are two sides of the same coin, for Jesus said, "carry my cross and follow my steps" and He tended to the poors, the sick, and rejected the rich but greedy etc. He set the example of what to do.  He also said "The Father and I are ONE. No one comes to the Father but through me."

As for what the Church did back then that caused the great schism that resulted in the rise of all other denominations,  LMAO, that is EXACTLY like what has caused martial arts to branch off into different branches and styles!!  Politics, ego, and money!!  LOL


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> _by Johnathan Napalm_
> Shame on you Bob. Talk about selective retention! You conveniently left out what this "indulgence" is about.



The author seemed a bit 'hostile', and I was focusing more on the 16th century versions, rather than the new 21st century versions, which I had hoped PAUL would clarify after reviewing the link as you did.

I'm not anywhere near to knowing whats what in the current catholic church as the last time I was in one was at my sons christening 11+ years ago. 


:asian:


----------



## white belt

> _Originally posted by white belt _
> *Three questions to put things in perspective.
> 
> 1) When is now?
> 
> 
> white belt *



 ?

white belt


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> The author seemed a bit 'hostile', and I was focusing more on the 16th century versions, rather than the new 21st century versions, which I had hoped PAUL would clarify after reviewing the link as you did.
> 
> I'm not anywhere near to knowing whats what in the current catholic church as the last time I was in one was at my sons christening 11+ years ago.



Understood.

Now  look at the Jubilee Indulgence that the contemptuous author so  objected to and see what basis his contempt is based on.

Quoted from the Papal Bull he cited. http://www.catholic.net/linksframe.phtml?link=http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pope/y2k-uk.html

"...Likewise confirmed for the coming Jubilee is the norm whereby confessors can commute, on behalf of those legitimately impeded, both the work prescribed and the conditions required.(24) Cloistered men and women religious, the infirm and all those who for whatever reason are not able to leave their own house, can carry out, in lieu of a visit to a certain Church, a visit to the chapel of their house; should even this be impossible for them, they can gain the indulgence by spiritually uniting themselves with those carrying out the prescribed work in the ordinary manner and by offering to God their prayers, sufferings and discomforts. With regard to the required conditions, the faithful can gain the Jubilee indulgence:

1) In Rome, if they make a pious pilgrimage to one of the Patriarchal Basilicas, namely, the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, the Archbasilica of the Most Holy Saviour at the Lateran, the Basilica of Saint Mary Major and the Basilica of Saint Paul on the Ostian Way, and there take part devoutly in Holy Mass or another liturgical celebration such as Lauds or Vespers, or some pious exercise (e.g., the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the recitation of the Akathistos Hymn in honour of the Mother of God); furthermore, if they visit, as a group or individually, one of the four Patriarchal Basilicas and there spend some time in Eucharistic adoration and pious mediations, ending with the Our Father, the profession of faith in any approved form, and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. To the four Patriarchal Basilicas are added, on this special occasion of the Great Jubilee, the following further places, under the same conditions: the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, the Basilica of Saint Lawrence in Campo Verano, the Shrine of Our Lady of Divine Love, and the Christian Catacombs.(25)

2) In the Holy Land, if, keeping the same conditions, they visit the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, or the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem or the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth.

3) In other ecclesiastical territories, if they make a sacred pilgrimage to the Cathedral Church or to other Churches or places designated by the Ordinary, and there assist devoutly at a liturgical celebration or other pious exercise, such as those mentioned above for the City of Rome; in addition, if they visit, in a group or individually, the Cathedral Church or a Shrine designated by the Ordinary, and there spend some time in pious meditation, ending with the Our Father, the profession of faith in any approved form, and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

4) In any place, if they visit for a suitable time their brothers and sisters in need or in difficulty (the sick, the imprisoned, the elderly living alone, the handicapped, etc.), as if making a pilgrimage to Christ present in them (cf. Mt 25:34-36), and fulfilling the usual spiritual and sacramental conditions and saying the usual prayers. The faithful will certainly wish to repeat these visits throughout the Holy Year, since on each occasion they can gain the plenary indulgence, although obviously not more than once a day.

The plenary indulgence of the Jubilee can also be gained through actions which express in a practical and generous way the penitential spirit which is, as it were, the heart of the Jubilee. This would include abstaining for at least one whole day from unnecessary consumption (e.g., from smoking or alcohol, or fasting or practising abstinence according to the general rules of the Church and the norms laid down by the Bishops' Conferences) and donating a proportionate sum of money to the poor; supporting by a significant contribution works of a religious or social nature (especially for the benefit of abandoned children, young people in trouble, the elderly in need, foreigners in various countries seeking better living conditions); devoting a suitable portion of personal free time to activities benefitting the community, or other similar forms of personal sacrifice......"


LMAO!  Yeah, HOW GREED FILLED, EVIL this Indulgence is!  How can any sane person find this Indulgence morally objectionable?


----------



## Kirk

> _Originally posted by Kirk  _*
> I agree. Aside from the history of greed associated with
> organized religion....*
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Oh really..  Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?
> *
Click to expand...


The "Holy" Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition to be specific.  

And on a broader scale, the religions (i'll finger point and say 
Southern Baptists, Mormons, and Jehova's Witnesses) that say
"to earn passage to heaven you must go forth and witness".
Translation: Go get more people to join us, so they can pay their
tithings on Sunday.  

Where I live, in South Texas, and ALL of Mexico was occupied by
Spain, by order of the Pope to convert the "heathens" to 
Catholicism.  Mexico was RIPE with gold.  



> _Originally posted by Kirk  _*
> Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
> He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
> change anything to sit in the house of God  *
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Oh really....  Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him?  Please do tell. *
Click to expand...


Jesus hung with THEM was the point I was trying to make.  But
since you asked, no he didn't tell them that (as if you didn't know.
your patronizing attitude is just being ignored).  But he also did
NOT tell them "you must go to church and put your money in the
plate, and turn your nose up to those that wear jeans in church,
or the man that's not freshly shaved, or the man that has a bit
of b.o. ", and so on.


----------



## fist of fury

Well I was attempting to saty out of this thread but it's still going on and I can't resist.



> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *
> Christians and Jews have the 10 commandments.
> 
> *



What I always find funny is that most do follow the 10 commandments. You know there are actually 613 commandments ment to be followed. But the western church only focuses on the 10 of them LOLOL


----------



## fist of fury

Ok then everybody let me ask this what makes somebody a christian? Belief in the christian God? going to church? following the 10 commandments?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> The "Holy" Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition to be specific.


Please read Paul's posts on this. This has already been discussed.  Paul has explained and provided extensive proof to rebutt.


> And on a broader scale, the religions (i'll finger point and say
> Southern Baptists, Mormons, and Jehova's Witnesses) that say
> "to earn passage to heaven you must go forth and witness".
> Translation: Go get more people to join us, so they can pay their
> tithings on Sunday.


Granted, the Jehova's is a cult and should be treated as such. But what makes you think your translation is correct?  Please elaborate.  

I can't speak for other denominations or religions, but tilthing is not a Catholic practice. I have never heard of being asked to tilth. It is free choice donation. 

BTW, have you checked out what evangelism means?



> Where I live, in South Texas, and ALL of Mexico was occupied by
> Spain, by order of the Pope to convert the "heathens" to
> Catholicism.  Mexico was RIPE with gold.


Human factor. I don't know what has to do with the teaching of Christianity.  Jesus said you should accumulate treasure in heavan, not on earth.  If the gold was accumulated and used to decorate the churches, what seems to be the problem? 



> Jesus hung with THEM was the point I was trying to make.  But
> since you asked, no he didn't tell them that (as if you didn't know.
> your patronizing attitude is just being ignored).  But he also did
> NOT tell them "you must go to church and put your money in the
> plate, and turn your nose up to those that wear jeans in church,
> or the man that's not freshly shaved, or the man that has a bit
> of b.o. ", and so on.


Good. Then why do you reject Jesus's teaching  because somebody else said something wrong?  So you agree that Jesus did not teach all the evil things and mistakes and what not?


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *
> Oh really....  Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him?  Please do tell. *



Yes he did actually do that because the religious leaders and people felt they were too good to hang out with them.  No I doubt he told them to go on thier merry way but, he probably ministered to them with kindness and understanding. Unlike most "christians" today who are to busy condeming the evil sinners forgetting that in God's eyes that sin is sin an nobody is above reproach or better than anybody else. You'll notice the only time he lost his temper and yelled was against the "religious" people turning the church into a marketplace.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by fist of fury _....What I always find funny is that most do follow the 10 commandments. You know there are actually 613 commandments ment to be followed. But the western church only focuses on the 10 of them LOLOL



You are confusing Christianity with Judaism.


----------



## Kirk

I was born and raised catholic, was an altar boy for about 8 
years, and was a lay eucharistic minister.  I was also a military
brat, so I've been in my share of various catholic churches, as
a parish member.  MANY a priest would give the old "tis easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man
to get into heaven" bit, before the plate was passed 
for "voluntary" donations.  MANY a priest quoted the bible's verse
of how you should give 10 % of your earnings to God (a.k.a. the
church) before passing the plate.  I don't buy voluntary one bit.

Note to you, look up "condescending" in the dictionary, and then
stop it.


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *You are confusing Christianity with Judaism. *



No actualy I'm not. Let me ask this In your opinion what is the purpose of the commandments?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by fist of fury _
> Yes he did actually do that because the religious leaders and people felt they were too good to hang out with them.  No I doubt he told them to go on thier merry way but, he probably ministered to them with kindness and understanding. Unlike most "christians" today who are to busy condeming the evil sinners forgetting that in God's eyes that sin is sin an nobody is above reproach or better than anybody else. You'll notice the only time he lost his temper and yelled was against the "religious" people turning the church into a marketplace.



There are a lot of christians who are in name only. Kind of like McDojo blackbelts.

I would invite you to explore what else Jesus had done and taught those people. That is if you care too. I am not evangelising here.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> I was born and raised catholic, was an altar boy for about 8
> years, and was a lay eucharistic minister.  I was also a military
> brat, so I've been in my share of various catholic churches, as
> a parish member.  MANY a priest would give the old "tis easier
> for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man
> to get into heaven" bit, before the plate was passed
> for "voluntary" donations.  MANY a priest quoted the bible's verse
> of how you should give 10 % of your earnings to God (a.k.a. the
> church) before passing the plate.  I don't buy voluntary one bit.
> 
> Note to you, look up "condescending" in the dictionary, and then
> stop it.



Would you care to answer the questions I have posted earlier?

What you buy or don't buy is irelevent. No one has asked any one I know to tilth. That is a fact. 

If I appear to be condescending, that is because you have been stating the same thing that Paul has already addressed with extensive posts.  Why don't you read those?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by fist of fury _
> No actualy I'm not. Let me ask this In your opinion what is the purpose of the commandments?



The 10 commandments?

Good lord. What kind of question is this? Sunday school?


----------



## Nightingale

Tithing is absolutely a catholic practice. they call it "sacrificial giving" now.  I remember sitting in church and hearing the deacon or person reading the announcements ask people to donate twenty percent of their income to the church.  I've heard it at several different catholic parishes.  

and to answer someone else's question:

I rejected christianity because every denomination of christianity puts a priest or minister up on a stage preaching, telling me what to do and how to do it as if he has some kind of direct telephone to heaven that I don't have.  These people are just as clueless as I am.

I rejected christianity because it is based on something that is scientifically impossible: rising from the dead.  you just flat out can't do that...and since god created the laws of science and physics and chemistry, it doesn't make any sense to me that he would wave a magic wand and make an exception just this once.  

my theories are:
1.  he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.

2.  reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof.  Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please).  This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.

The bible is an interesting book, and it has many good lessons.  However, I have doubts of its historical accuracy...with regards to the old testament:  you had thousands of years of oral tradition before anything was written down...ever played a game of telephone?  and the new testament:  the gospels weren't written as chronicles as things happened...they were written many years after the death of Jesus.  All our memories get a little fuzzy when we look back on something that happened more than ten years ago...  and the story of the birth of Jesus and the conception and all that (in one of the gospels, don't remember which one)...this was written by one of the apostles, but according to the story itself, the writer wasn't there. He must have heard it from someone else (not denying the possiblilty that it could be accurate, just bringing up the possibility that it may not be).

The points I see for christianity:

when taken as it is meant to be, it has a good moral code, and many of the followers mean well.

history says Jesus existed.

The points I see against christianity:

Rising from the dead defies science.
There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.


My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth.  The bible says it is the word of god.  however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do.  I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity.

Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it correct...remember, lots of people believed the world was flat.


----------



## Kirk

The gold didn't go just to decorate the church.  Just like 
confession wasn't ONLY to absolve sins.

I never rejected Jesus' teachings.  I reject organized religion, and
the human law that church is a requirement to get into heaven.
I believe the human factor you quote is also in the bible.  I try
to live my life as Jesus did, with the most direct laws being, "the
only way into the kingdom of heaven is through me" and "do
unto others".  The rest is up to interpretation.


----------



## Kirk

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *Rising from the dead defies science.
> There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
> The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.
> *



If it didn't defy science, then it wouldn't be a miracle, which was
proof of God's power.



> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
> *




There's boat loads of proof.  Most sources are found in spiritual
book stores and what not.  Some even put science into it, they're
pretty interesting, even if you're not a christian.  The put logical
sense into various odd miracles, not just Jesus'.  You can't now,
prove healing the sick, or parting the clouds and hearing God's
voice, or feeding the masses, etc.  



> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.
> *



Amen to that!  Which is the main reason I believe the "human
factor" is in the Bible's writings.



> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth.  The bible says it is the word of god.  however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do.  I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity.
> 
> *



Well let me ask you this.  If I took all the writings of George 
Washington, and writings about him (during his time) and put
it into one book, would that make you doubt his existance and
work?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> 
> I never rejected Jesus' teachings.  I reject organized religion, and
> the human law that church is a requirement to get into heaven.
> I believe the human factor you quote is also in the bible.  I try
> to live my life as Jesus did, with the most direct laws being, "the
> only way into the kingdom of heaven is through me" and "do
> unto others".  The rest is up to interpretation.



I can respect that. I don't believe church is a reguirement to get into heavan. I don't even believe you have to be a Christian to get into heavan.  There is no way the ever loving Father is that petty as to reject His children who have lived a decent and honorable life. What kind of God would that be?  Besides, heavan is the end effect of a life on earth. The objective is to live a life to,".... in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness...." and to be"  his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...." Ezekiel 25:17   A life of service. (I begin to sound like Sean Connery in First Knight  )   

It is like in martial art. You practice NOT b/c of aiming to attaining mastery at the end.  The journay is the reward. Everything else is icing on the cake.


----------



## Rich Parsons

When is Now?

Now is the moment you are living in and it extends through you and through out the universe.


McDojo comparison.

The comparison of being a follower of non sustenance is like belonging to a McDojo. Now on here has a problem with issue of the McDojo's being laughed at or being talked about, but everyone get upset when people talk about religion. If it is a McDojo 'thing' then join us in the laugh and say I concede that point for this issues, yet I would like to state that I and others do not act like this, . . . ,.

As for the separation of Church and person and Instructor and Art. If I as an American go over-seas and kill some one I am a representative of the my country. And even if my country admits I am wrong, they still have to deal with the negative backlash of my actions. If the US Government send troops in and 'Collateral Damage'  occurs and innocent people are killed, is not the US Government and the troops at hand held accountable for their actions. Yet is was sad, and yes it was wrong, yet we are required to accept our failures and to not deny them and blame them on the individual. So, why should the Church, any church or any religion not be held accountable for their actions. I am held accountable for my actions by laws of man. By the laws of my nation. Why are not the religions held accountable? Oh everyone will stand up and say they are not a part of us and that they are not welcome among us, yet many of the people of the crowd associate with these radicals on a daily basis. This is approval even if it is the form of doing nothing.

As for the Human Factor or the Age of a person being an issue, we all have to deal with the Human factor and the age of people. So, why excuse an 80 year old pope, when my grandfather at 80 was mentally acute and could walk without a cane. Oh this is just one case. Well as Paul pointed out, it is the one in a billion that should be praised for their accomplishments. Almost like everyone should strive for this. And if the 80 year was not all with it, he should have not been given the job. Oh it was the politics or human factor the made him the Pope because of compromise amongst the Cardinals of vote. Hmmm sounds like the whole issue is full of human influence and failures. I see no way to ever remove them, therefore either accept the issue and accept that there will be failings and let us all realize that is will be there. So, it is not just the individual it is also the organization it self. 

I agree in general the bases of most religions are nice and support the general welfare of people.

I hope to hear more


----------



## TLH3rdDan

ok back to this religion is ok its the people running it that are bad... granted people are no perfect... how does one get put in charge of an organized religion? 

since anyone can go out and start a church to preach a doctrine from a paticular religion with out any need of regulation or formal training. what makes these people qualified to do this?

another thing that i noticed everyone seemed to skip right over without even a mention was a post about the satanic commandments... what are your thoughts on them?


----------



## Cruentus

Rich:

This will hopefully answer some of your questions.

Galileo: I read a little about his situation. Although modern contemporaries know Galileo for his works in astronomy, he had actually made more contributions to the field of mechanics and other sciences. In his day, he most noted for the discovery of the telescope. That is just a side note, however on top of being a genius, what a lot of people dont know about him (and that I didnt know either until I checked a few sources) was that he was a fierce controversialist. He would often unsparingly ridicule those who had different views then he; and many of these views where the widely excepted ones of his time period. He wouldnt just ridicule verbally either, he did so in writing, and often without demonstrating logical proof to his arguments (even if he had the logical proof available). Basically, although Galileo was a genius, he had a habit of pissing everyone off; his peers, the government, etc., not just church authority. If Galileo was on MartialTalk today, from what I read it sounds as if he would have been banned by the moderators.

Most of his astronomical discoveries where very basic, and came along with the discovery of the telescope (for instance, discovering that the moon had texture, and wasnt a perfectly round and smooth sphere as was thought previously back then). He was noted for abandoning the old Ptolemaic astronomy for the Copernican, but it is important to note that in 1597 he confessed in a letter to Kepler that he refrained from making himself an advocate for Copernican astronomy because  lest Copernicus himself should be overwhelmed with ridicule. Galileo, although genius, was also very ego driven in that regard. Yet, His astronomical discoveries are virtually summed up with his telescopic discoveries. Although these are brilliant and important, he did little in terms of scientific proofs. He didnt give much regards to his contemporary Kepler, who had discovered his famous scientific laws. More importantly his proofs in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus against the geocentric system of Ptolemy were far from conclusive. Galileo failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahe`, Lord Bacon, and Milton of his discoveries. Galileos proof of the phenomenon of tides and earth rotation is also known today as being completely false; yet Galileo treated Keplers suggestions with scorn, the same suggestions that led to Newtons establishment of the true scientific doctrine. Galileo also scorned Tychos theory on comets, which had in hindsight had turned out to be more correct then his. Galileo was a genius and a great scientist, but he was also arrogant and angered his contemporaries. This greatly contributed to the cause of his troubles later in life.

Another important point to mention is that although the Catholic Church of the middle ages is currently viewed as having a hatred towards science to keep the minds of the people ignorant, there are many important facts that point to this not being the case. The Church, before Galileo, had been not only a great advocate for science, but the only advocate for it. What is not widely known is that Nicolaus Copernicus' entire family had belonged to the 3rd order of St. Dominic, and his sister was a nun. Copernicus had furthered his education in astronomy at the University of Bologna which was a Church sponsored university. In his day Copernicus had given lectures to many church Bishops, clergy, and other figures, and even served as temporary administrator of his Diocese when his Bishop unexpectedly died. I can list many other examples, but for a long time the church was in fact the only advocate for science, medicine, and universities, and many scientests (such as Copernicus in this example) had a good relationship with the church. Back then, there was no government funding for education. There were no difficulty on the Catholic side to Copernicuss work (neither Paul III nor any of the nine Popes after him raised alarm), but his work was in fact condemned by other Denomination figures such as Luther and Melanchthon.

In letters when Galileo had spoke of his risks of advocating some of his ideas, he mentioned "ridicule" by his peers, not persecution. In 1611, Galileo received triumph by clerigy in his visit to Rome, and Cardinal Bandim had others had flocked to look through the telescope that he had set up in the Quirinal Garden.

His trouble occurred 4 years later when he began forcefully advocating his views, many of which he had failed to prove. More trouble insued when his partner, Foscarini, who was a Carmilite Friar, began spreading false doctrine based on Galileos Theories. Galileo and Foscarini received great support from groups in Italy which saught to overthrow the church. Both of these men found themselves in front of the Inquisition due to this. Without proof or support from the rest of the scientific community of whom Galileo ridiculed, and a refusal to stop spreading faulty religious doctrine, they were both deemed heretics. From this controversy, some of the ecclesiastical authority did try to later ban the ideas of Copernicus. Galileo did make the compelling point that  The Bible is intended to teach men how to get to heaven, not where the heavens go, but due to his lack of willingness to compromise he failed to make the point that his astronomy is not meant to go against or refute scripture. He still had many friends in the church, however. Men like Cardinal Bellermine and Cardinal Barberini, who had urged Galileo to make the argument that his science is not intended to refute scripture. Nevertheless, Galileo was still alowed to return home after being deemed a heretic, and was able to continue his studies. Despite the controversy, Galileo returned to Rome in 1624 and received a generous reception by Pope Urban VIII (former Cardinal Barberini, one of Galileos supporters). Pope Urban III was disappointed to find that Galileo had come to demand a pension from the church for his pursuit of science. He was sent home, of course, empty handed.

Galileo revised all of his former animosities towards the church, and published them in 1632. Roman authorities saw this as a direct challenge, so they brought him in for another Inquisition. Galileo once again failed to display the logic behind his opinions. It is important to note here that at this point the man was 68 years old, broke, and in need of a pension. The Inquisition decided that it would be in the best interest of everyone to sentence him to imprisonment. Here are some of the details of his imprisonment, according to his PROTESTANT biographer, Von Geblar:

One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether 22 days in the buildings of the Holy Office, and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition. For the rest, he was allowed to use as his place of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and luxurious.

The torture of Galileo, or blinding by persecutors is historically untrue (although he did lose his eyesight through natural means 5 years before his death). He was even allowed to be buried on consecrated ground within the church of Santa Croce, and was given blessing by Pope Urban VIII, although a monument was erected over his tomb. His famous E pur si muove, which he supposedly uttered after persecution renouncing the motion of the earth, is acknowledged as fiction, for no mentioning of it occurs until a century later. As for being slipped a hemlock in a jail cell, sorry, no jail cell. As for the Hemlock, I do not know, but none of the encyclopedias I checked even mention it. The fact remains, the man died in 1642, at 78 years of age.

This is a little brief history of Galileo, and his experience with the Church of his day. He wasnt this great and humble scientest who was persecuted for his beliefs. The situation just wasnt that black in white, and Galileos case wasnt even one of persecution. Now, do other cases of persecution by church authority exist, yes they do. I have said before that no one is perfect; there are cases where yes, just like Jesus, people where martyred with the help of Church authority. Did the entire Church as an institution advocate this, or did the doctrine ever facilitate this? No, it never did.

Church and Science: The church is in search of truth, plain and simple. The church doesnt try to explain what science tries to, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church recognizes that science is trying to explain how while the church is trying to explain why. When Science tries to explain the Whys, the church doesnt agree, because it is not the job of Science to try to explain why in terms of morality, God, etc. Nor is it the Churches job to try to explain how the universe works. I will say that if there is something in science that changes the way we think about religion, the church takes careful measures on how to except the theory, and how it fits with Christianity. We have never had a case where it has changed Catholic Church doctrine. One thing that is for sure, though, and this stands today as strong as it has in the past, is that the Church wont blindly accept a scientific hypothesis without proof. In Galileos case, many of the proofs that he presented where insuficient; not just by the churches standards, but by the standards of other contemporary scientists.

Rich Wrote: As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?

Yes, yes, and yes. There are truths everywhere, and truth is truth. If we believe that murder is a sin in Christianity, and the Buddhists believe the same, then we would say that the Buddhists are teaching a truth. As a Catholic, I realize that the Holy Spirit works in many ways. This is why I say that people have their own journey. In my belief there are many who will be allowed to enter heaven, not just the ones with the Christian label. There are also many who wont be allowed, and some of these may also have the Christian label. It is not up to me to judge, I just need to constantly search for the truth myself. I wouldnt say that all these other ways of thought are WRONG, but I would say that in my opinion, Catholicism is the MOST CORRECT. I fully acknowledge, though, that I dont have all the answers, and I believe that I will find out at my death which points I have missed.

I do want to stress, however, that I am not being wishy washy on the matter of truth.  Truth is truth, no matter what religion or thought it comes from. But, I cant placidly sit here and say all religions are correct in completeness, even though they contain some or many universal ideas and truths. If one person believes in reincarnation, and the other doesnt, one will be correct and one wont. It is just important that we are constantly finding the truth for ourselves.               

Rich also said: So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place. 

Amen, Rich, I totally agree.

In reference to the celibacy vow, I dont agree. People have been taking Celibacy vows since before Jesus with records of Jewish Desert Hermits. It is Believed that Jesus was celibate (I dont want anyone to even TRY to tell me that he had a thing with Mary Magdiline when there is no evidence out there to support that theory). Many of the apostles, in theory, took a vow of celibacy when they chose to follow Jesus. There are historical references to people of Christianianity (of religious order as well as lay people) taking this vow also well before the 800s or so. St. Augustine writes explicitly about his excursions with many women, which he gave up to do Gods work. It is just that it wasnt made official cannon law until later. The law was man-made, but had been around since Jesus, and was a result (from a Catholic view-point) from his teachings. This doesn't mean that we believe that sex is evil, or something silly like that, but we do respect what sex is for, the morality behind it, and we do respect the dicipline of taking a vow such as celibacy.

Well, this is the way I see it, anyways.

In another post.Ill address Indulgances! (yay!)      
:boing2:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

@ ric

You are still missing the point. In the McDojo comparison, you don't reject the martial art.  Are you laughing at Karate there? I don't think so. See my point?

If you go oversea and commit a crime, the US consular will give you a list of the local lawyer and that is it!!  Don't expect anything more.  Seriously!!  Unless you are in the military or some capacity that represent the US government.

If you are wrongly imprisoned by a rogue regime, that is a different story. Ordinary running foul of the local penal codes, your American citizenship is worth a xeroxed list of the local attorneys.


----------



## Cruentus

Nightengale:

You wrote: 

I was raised catholic. A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years. He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well). I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor. To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.

I can respect your decision to not want to be a Catholic, but dont take expect everyone here to take 3rd hand information from you about some obscure x-priest who apparently told you all the secrets about the Catholic Churches behind-the-scenes homo-erotica as gospel. Your post makes the Catholic Church sound like a gay porn film festival once the families leave the pews. Your assessment isnt fair, and is very narrow in my opinion. I know countless parishioners, priests, nuns, and ex-priests who do not relay the same experiences. And guess what..Ive accomplished the unthinkable, Ive been in a room with a priest alone before.and guess what? He didnt try to have sex with me! Hmmmm, imagine that? I must not be very attractive.  

You also wrote.

my theories are:
1. he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.

2. reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof. Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please). This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels. 

O.K.this post was a bit more fair. Thank you for presenting your beliefs. There is a book, if you desire to do some reading, called The Book of Christian Apoligetics by Peter Kreeft and some other guy. Try your Christian or Catholic bookstore, but if you cant find it and need help let me know.

Basically the book successfully refutes the conjectures and theories you posted. Given the time and limits of a talk forum, I am not going to do that here. My only intention on this thread is to clarify Catholic misconceptions and express my beliefs; I have no intention of refuting others beliefs unless I feel that they are hostile towards mine.

A note on the Gospels: 1. There were other plenty historical refrences and writings of a Jesus in scrolls and Roman records outside of a Bible. 2. The gospels where not intended to be put into a Bible to be read as Gods Word when the writers first wrote them. They where in fact written down and intended as historical references as the authors saw it. 

If you dont want to believe in Jesus raising from the dead, that is your perogative, and I respect your belief. There a ton of very references written by accomplished and logical scholars (such as the book I mentioned) that explain differently, and expresses logical and historical points.   


:asian: 

Kiath: Don't worry.....I'm getting to the Indulgances!  Whew


----------



## Cruentus

Indulgances:

What they arent: 

It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject. 

-	New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

Now Ill explain in brief what they are.all they are is certain good works that the church has defined as extra-sacremental remishion of a punishment from a sin. It stems from the notion that in life every action is either for good or for bad, to a certain degree. An Indulgence is just one of those good things, specifically defined, and may help balance some of the bad things that you may have done. It has been abused in the past, but the Church has always condemned its abuses.

In terms of paying for an indulgence, in most cases this occurred when a donation was asked after or before the granting of an indulgance. The donation was asked, but anything beyond that would have been an abuse. 

I personally don't pay much attention to indulgances. Most Catholics, through my experience, really don't. This is evident in that most lay-people can't really explain them, when really the concept is pretty simple. I just try to live everyday to the fullest, and I try to make my good actions outweigh the bad.


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *The 10 commandments?
> 
> Good lord. What kind of question is this? Sunday school? *



No it was a simple and straight forward question I didn't ask for a doctrinal thesis smart ***. I just was curious as to what you thought the 10 commandments purpose was.


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *Tithing is absolutely a catholic practice. they call it "sacrificial giving" now.  I remember sitting in church and hearing the deacon or person reading the announcements ask people to donate twenty percent of their income to the church.  I've heard it at several different catholic parishes.
> 
> and to answer someone else's question:
> 
> I rejected christianity because every denomination of christianity puts a priest or minister up on a stage preaching, telling me what to do and how to do it as if he has some kind of direct telephone to heaven that I don't have.  These people are just as clueless as I am.
> *


*
agreed and the goverment does the same thing. They might not use God as thier reason.



			I rejected christianity because it is based on something that is scientifically impossible: rising from the dead.  you just flat out can't do that...and since god created the laws of science and physics and chemistry, it doesn't make any sense to me that he would wave a magic wand and make an exception just this once.
		
Click to expand...

No religion is scientific nearly all belief systems are based on faith. If a god/goddess can be quantified by science than are they really a god worth worshipping? Science also used to tell use that blood letting was good so science can be wrong they just have a hard time admitting it.



			my theories are:
1.  he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.
		
Click to expand...

Have you ever actually studied the crucifixion proccess? The whipping he would've bleed to death before the 3 days were up.



			2.  reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof.  Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please).  This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.
		
Click to expand...

Read the book of josepheus(sp?) written by a jew who lived at those times and wasn't a christian.



			The points I see against christianity:

Rising from the dead defies science.
Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it correct...remember, lots of people believed the world was flat.
		
Click to expand...

*And again science isn't always correct just because something hasn't been proven by science yet doesn't make it impossible. Science can be slow.


----------



## Cruentus

Money issues regarding the Catholic Church have been mentioned, so I thought I would address them. 

I find it odd where our society sometimes puts value. We are willing to pay $8 for a movie, and $10 or more for candy and pop corn and pop, yet many of the non-religious don't complain about movie prices and over-priced candy with the same zeal that they complain about OTHER people putting 5 or even (holy-cow)  *10* dollars in a collection basket at a church that they don't even go to. Ironic, don't you think.

The fact is, the church needs money to survive; any institution does. And, when you don't charge for your services, you have to ask for donations. It's just that simple.

Now I often hear other whining about the Catholic Church and the way it spends money on buildings, art, etc.

Well guess what, most of the donators, like myself, find these things of value. We like it. And it should be of no suprise that most of the complainers aren't even a part of that church, and don't donate to it anyways.

Some important things to note: Catholic Clergy takes a vow of poverty. Priests make what is considered poverty level income, with no hopes for getting a raise. Priests are not in the same category as these televangalists who drive around in Merceded-Benz Limo's.

Another point: I've been to mass before where I didn't like the homily. I went to one recently, at a different church where the priest had said that volunteer work is something of great value. Then he did something of little value, which was he proceeded to read all of the positions open for volunteer work at the parish, and their discriptions. That was the homily....I had to listen to 20 minutes of THAT!

But, guess what? That was only 1 Sunday folks. And that was only 1 priest. That should hardly be used as a method to judge an entire organization or way of thinking.

So, if you were at 1 or 2 homilies where you disagreed, join the club with every other Catholic out there. If you didn't like how one priest presented the idea of "donating," then you could have gone to another parish, or just come back to the same parish the next Sunday, where the subject would have changed. Now, if your trying to purpose that you have been to countless Catholic Masses, and the entire subject of "almost" every one was "donate, donate, donate," then I would purpose that not only are you wrong in your perception, but that this is your narrow view, and your narrow opinion that your trying to pass off to this thread as fact. Sorry to be so harsh, and I don't know for sure if that is what some of you are saying. I can only make this conclusion, however, based on the fact that the experience of being asked for excessive donations doesn't coincide with that of countless other Catholics I know.

One final thing....Being generous is a Catholic value, but requiring donations of exessive value, or hoaxing people into giving, of donating beyond ones means is NOT a Catholic value. That is another thing that you won't find in the Churches teachings.  

:asian:

I must get back to work now. A lot of good points on this thread, and I unfortunatily do not have the time to address every single one. If you have a question for me, however, please post it and I will try to get back to it as soon as I can.


----------



## Shinobi

Someone mentioned the 9 Satanic Statements(NOT Commandments) and to that I give you a thumbs up. I like them.


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by TLH3rdDan _
> *ok back another thing that i noticed everyone seemed to skip right over without even a mention was a post about the satanic commandments... what are your thoughts on them? *



Yeah I noticed that too my guess is many people are afriad they agree with them lololol


----------



## qizmoduis

Tithing:  Tithing is not a Catholic church practice, as tithing has a very specific definition that is not satisfied by regular churchgoer donations.  Tithing is an absolute requirement that 10% of your income be given to your church.  There are other religions that have this requirement, but RC isn't one of them.  I think, and I'm sure others could verify this, that the Mormon church does this, as does the Jehovah's Witness sect.  There are others, I'm sure.

Cult vs. Religion:  A cult is just a religion that hasn't grown up yet.  The only difference is really one of scale.

Historical references to Jesus:  There are none that are independent of scripture.  There is one reference in a set of writings by the ancient historian, Josephus, but most scholars agree that the reference was most likely inserted by "pious" monks.  Obviously, the subject is still debated.  Other than that, only the bible exists.  Thus, it isn't historically supported that Jesus existed and performed miracles as described in the Bible.

Personally, I'm sure that SOMEONE started it all, but the mythology surrounding him basically grew in the telling.  One thing I find very interesting, and telling, is that the myth of Jesus basically mirrors similar messianic cults of the time and earlier.  Mythraism is a good example, where the lead figure of Mythra was born of a virgin, sacrificed, and rose from the dead.  Mythraism had it's heyday a century or two prior to the inception of Christianity, and was popular among the Roman legions.  There are others, as well, and some of them were quite well-known.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

I read in another forum where someone mentioned that Jesus was the first clone baby.  lol

Kind of funny, if you think about it. Virgin birth = implanted embryo.  "The Father and I are One" = clone!


----------



## fist of fury

> _Originally posted by Shinobi _
> *Someone mentioned the 9 Satanic Statements(NOT Commandments) and to that I give you a thumbs up. I like them. *



Then you'l really like these

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

by Anton Szandor LaVey 




1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. 

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. 

3. When in anothers lair, show him respect or else do not go there. 

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. 

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. 

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. 

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained. 

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. 

9. Do not harm little children. 

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. 

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> Tithing is absolutely a catholic practice. they call it "sacrificial giving" now.  I remember sitting in church and hearing the deacon or person reading the announcements ask people to donate twenty percent of their income to the church.  I've heard it at several different catholic parishes.


20%? No chance in hell in getting that!  Good luck I say!    Unless you are the Scientologists  That is a cult and it milks its innocent members dry!



> and to answer someone else's question:
> 
> I rejected christianity because every denomination of christianity puts a priest or minister up on a stage preaching, telling me what to do and how to do it as if he has some kind of direct telephone to heaven that I don't have.  These people are just as clueless as I am.


Some preachers are worthless. But not all.  You know what they say about overgeneralization.



> I rejected christianity because it is based on something that is scientifically impossible: rising from the dead.  you just flat out can't do that...and since god created the laws of science and physics and chemistry, it doesn't make any sense to me that he would wave a magic wand and make an exception just this once.


How does that compare to Wiccam (sp?)? Is Wiccam (sp) scientifically proven?   BTW, don't you think your practice might jeopadize your plan to be a teacher, if I remember correctly reading somewhere that you want to teach?


> my theories are:
> 1.  he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.
> 
> 2.  reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.
> 
> The problem is in the burden of proof.  Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please).  This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.


Paul mentioned a book that discuss that.


> The bible is an interesting book, and it has many good lessons.  However, I have doubts of its historical accuracy...with regards to the old testament:  you had thousands of years of oral tradition before anything was written down...ever played a game of telephone?  and the new testament:  the gospels weren't written as chronicles as things happened...they were written many years after the death of Jesus.  All our memories get a little fuzzy when we look back on something that happened more than ten years ago...  and the story of the birth of Jesus and the conception and all that (in one of the gospels, don't remember which one)...this was written by one of the apostles, but according to the story itself, the writer wasn't there. He must have heard it from someone else (not denying the possiblilty that it could be accurate, just bringing up the possibility that it may not be).


I value the New T for its teaching on values and ideas such as fraternal love and unconditional forgiveness. I don't see how anyone can object to the teaching of kindness, compassionate, universal love and stewardship of the earth and its beings.



> The points I see for christianity:
> 
> when taken as it is meant to be, it has a good moral code, and many of the followers mean well.


That is fine.


> history says Jesus existed.
> 
> The points I see against christianity:
> 
> Rising from the dead defies science.
> There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
> The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.
> 
> My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth.  The bible says it is the word of god.  however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do.  I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity.
> 
> Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it correct...remember, lots of people believed the world was flat. [/B]


No one will deny the contradictions in the Bible. The Old Testament is little more than a recorded history of the Jews as told by the elders then. 

I think you can go only as far to assert that what is in the Bible is inspired by God, although I admit that cut a loop hole just as big for other charlatans to claim the same. 


To borrow Jeet Kune Do concept of getting rid off the useless stuff but retaining the useful stuff, we can cast aside the ambiguity and contradiction and still retain the good teaching of Jesus, ie to be a good and decent human being, to be kind to each other, to "shepherd the weak through the valley of the darkness", to be "truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.."


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by fist of fury _
> Then you'l really like these
> 
> The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
> 
> by Anton Szandor LaVey
> 
> 1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
> 
> 2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
> 
> 3. When in anothers lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
> 
> 4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
> 
> 5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
> 
> 6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
> 
> 7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
> 
> 8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
> 
> 9. Do not harm little children.
> 
> 10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
> 
> 11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.



Kind of like the same stuff your neighborhood bowling team dreams up.


----------



## Cruentus

> 11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.



"Octumus Prime.....Deeeeeeeeestroy!":stoplurk: 

:rofl: :lol: 

Or for those of you who don't remember transformers, and would prefer Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles instead.....

"Bebop! Rocksteady! Destroy those tuuuuurtles!

:bazook:                               :ninja: 

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. I'm such a geek.   

By the way...read the Satanic Bible when I was young, it was to self-serving for me then, as I would imagine it would still be now.


----------



## Shinobi

You are right, I do enjoy those as well. I enjoy the writings of Mr. LaVey very much indeed.


----------



## Cruentus

For the record, one of my favorite holidays outside of Christmas is Samhain.

And...if your celibrating Imbolc in 9 days (Feb. 2nd), think of me....that's the day of my Birthday!:cheers:


----------



## white belt

white belt


----------



## Cruentus

> You are right, I do enjoy those as well. I enjoy the writings of Mr. LaVey very much indeed.



I'm sure you would, Shinobi.


Oooooo, I got to get back to market analysis. I'm just excited that I got my purple belt.

Peace out....:ubercool:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Johnathan - Its 'Wicca' or 'Wiccan' with an N.

Regarding Mr. Lavey....interesting read...I've been thru his many books many times when I was a teen.  His background was he was a carny-barker who worked the sunday mass in the tents.  Every sunday he'd see these upstanding folks crying about how sorry they were for sinning, and be right back at it on monday full speed.  he decided that mainstream religions were based on hypocracy and so wrtoe out what he thought was common sence stuff, combined with his flair for the circus.  Hense the elaborite rituals with naked women, and upside down crosses, etc.  There is a difference between being a 'Satan Worshiper' and a Lavey 'Satanist'.

For interesting issues on religious descrimination see Wrens Nest.  Its unbiased in looking at how all groups are mistreated.
http://www.witchvox.com/xwrensnest.html
Its also got a number of other interesting news bits, most of which you wont see in the mainstream controled media.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Another point to be mentioned is the complete lack of intelegence in certain members of our appointed government.



> "I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the US military to promote it," President George W. Bush said in October 2000 when campaigning in the US presidential election.



Someone needs to tell DerFurer Adolph Shrub here that Wicca has been reconized by the US Military as a 'real' religion since 1978, and the now obsolete Army Chaplains Handbook has had sections concerning it since at least 1984.  

In addition, the IRS has been granting 501(c)(3) IRS tax exempt status to wiccan and pagan churches since 1972.

Very interesting read here : http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=5558
though the original article appears to be offline.


The problem with -any- religion is understanding and tollerence.  We have very little for the different, and as I said before, 'religion' is used as an excuse for too many things.  The violence in N. Ireland, the Israiel / Arab issues, the US 'war on terrorism', bosnia, etc.


----------



## Master of Blades

Ok heres a differant question........

"If God is everywhere then why must we travel to church?" 

AND

"If God is all merciful and there is a God then shouldnt he forgive you for whatever sin anyway?"

I dunno I just saw them on Tv and thought I might as well get your ideas on those......


----------



## TLH3rdDan

> Kind of like the same stuff your neighborhood bowling team dreams up.



wow now there is some wonderful judgement of someone elses beliefs... with out knowing anything about them... gee surprise surprise... of course i could say that the 10 commandments were made up the same way... but i dont... because they are in nature a nice set of basic laws just as the satanic statements are and as are the satanic rules on earth...

ps its optimus prime not octumus prime... i love the transformers... great series... im trying to collect all the figures from it but thats another thread all together lol


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by TLH3rdDan _
> *wow now there is some wonderful judgement of someone elses beliefs... with out knowing anything about them... gee surprise surprise... of course i could say that the 10 commandments were made up the same way... but i dont... because they are in nature a nice set of basic laws just as the satanic statements are and as are the satanic rules on earth...
> 
> ps its optimus prime not octumus prime... i love the transformers... great series... im trying to collect all the figures from it but thats another thread all together lol *



Temper Temper.........and the Dinosaur Transformers were the best!


----------



## TLH3rdDan

yeah grimlock was cool... i never did like them after they brought in the new one around the time the movie came out... and they killed optimus and megatron and all the orignal transformers... the new series armada is cool i hate the beast wars series....


----------



## Master of Blades

Anyway......back onto God :shrug:


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Kind of like the same stuff your neighborhood bowling team dreams up.   *



A saying about glass houses and their residents comes to mind here.

It should be noted that LaVey created his particular vision as a giant honking middle finger pointed directly at mainstream christianity, which he viewed as a horrific cesspit of pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

It ALSO should be noted very clearly that LaVey Satanists do not worship Satan.  In fact, they don't worship anything, as far as I can recall.


----------



## Abbax8

"My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth. The bible says it is the word of god. however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do. I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity."

         Have you ever read any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers- also known as Patristic Writings. They cooroborate many of the Churches teaching and give evidence as to what the Church believed in the the earliest times. They cover much of the Tradition  part of Catholic teaching.

                                                     Peace
                                                       Dennis


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Master of Blades _
> *Ok heres a differant question........
> 
> "If God is everywhere then why must we travel to church?"
> 
> AND
> 
> "If God is all merciful and there is a God then shouldnt he forgive you for whatever sin anyway?"
> 
> I dunno I just saw them on Tv and thought I might as well get your ideas on those...... *



Still waiting :shrug:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by TLH3rdDan _
> wow now there is some wonderful judgement of someone elses beliefs... with out knowing anything about them... gee surprise surprise... of course i could say that the 10 commandments were made up the same way... but i dont... because they are in nature a nice set of basic laws just as the satanic statements are and as are the satanic rules on earth...
> 
> ps its optimus prime not octumus prime... i love the transformers... great series... im trying to collect all the figures from it but thats another thread all together lol



I can remember clearly when we were kids, we made up rules more or less just like those for our tree house.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I can remember clearly when we were kids, we made up rules more or less just like those for our tree house. *



You are extraordinarily disrepectful of others' beliefs, whereas you insist that others respect yours.  I declare you to be a hypocrite.  

I make no pretense of respecting beliefs I have no respect for, nor do I require that of others.  You, however, do not follow your own rules.

Can a hypocrite be a True Christian? :rtfm:


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *
> Can a hypocrite be a True Christian? :rtfm: *



Hasnt stopped people in the past......:shrug:


----------



## TLH3rdDan

i agree with you qiz this guy seems to have one agenda and he has yet to answer some of the real questions that have been asked of him... such as the ones about faith postes way way way back at the begining of this and the one master of blades has on this page... i have a feeling he wont answer them...


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Master of Blades _
> Ok heres a differant question........
> 
> "If God is everywhere then why must we travel to church?"
> 
> AND
> 
> "If God is all merciful and there is a God then shouldnt he forgive you for whatever sin anyway?"
> 
> I dunno I just saw them on Tv and thought I might as well get your ideas on those......



1. No, you don't NEED to go to church to be a good christian. How you live your life determines what you are.  I have met many non-christians who live a more christian life than many who call themselves christians.

Going to church is like going to a dojo. It is just a facility. You can train anywhere, in any gym or any room. Granted, you may need the equipment. And Church is in a way, with the "equipment" in a sense, but  going to church is not an absolute must.  I must emphasize that this is just my view.

2. God is merciful. But are you absolutely truly sincere in your remorse and your quest for redemption for whatever deed you have done?  Would you have the slightest doubt? You can't fool anyone. Because you are facing no one, except your own heart, when you seek redemption.  You can't pretend. If you think you are pulling a fast one, then you are doomed.    It is like Clint Eastwood said " You have to ask yourself. Do I feel lucky today?" So, "do you feel lucky, punk?"      God is merciful but you don't get a free past.   You can't say you are going to pull this and that and later just ask for forgiveness.  Do you think you are going to fool GOD? Wanna bet?  So, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by TLH3rdDan _
> *i agree with you qiz this guy seems to have one agenda and he has yet to answer some of the real questions that have been asked of him... such as the ones about faith postes way way way back at the begining of this and the one master of blades has on this page... i have a feeling he wont answer them... *



if you want to talk about me, have the guts to address me directly.


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *@ ric
> 
> You are still missing the point. In the McDojo comparison, you don't reject the martial art.  Are you laughing at Karate there? I don't think so. See my point?
> 
> If you go oversea and commit a crime, the US consular will give you a list of the local lawyer and that is it!!  Don't expect anything more.  Seriously!!  Unless you are in the military or some capacity that represent the US government.
> 
> If you are wrongly imprisoned by a rogue regime, that is a different story. Ordinary running foul of the local penal codes, your American citizenship is worth a xeroxed list of the local attorneys. *



Napalm,

I might be missing the boat or point.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *1. No, you don't NEED to go to church to be a good christian. How you live your life determines what you are.  I have met many non-christians who live a more christian life than many who call themselves christians.
> 
> Going to church is like going to a dojo. It is just a facility. You can train anywhere, in any gym or any room. Granted, you may need the equipment. And Church is in a way, with the "equipment" in a sense, but  going to church is not an absolute must.  I must emphasize that this is just my view.
> 
> 2. God is merciful. But are you absolutely truly sincere in your remorse and your quest for redemption for whatever deed you have done?  Would you have the slightest doubt? You can't fool anyone. Because you are facing no one, except your own heart, when you seek redemption.  You can't pretend. If you think you are pulling a fast one, then you are doomed.    It is like Clint Eastwood said " You have to ask yourself. Do I feel lucky today?" So, "do you feel lucky, punk?"      God is merciful but you don't get a free past.   You can't say you are going to pull this and that and later just ask for forgiveness.  Do you think you are going to fool GOD? Wanna bet?  So, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"   *



Took a while but those were some good answers.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> You are extraordinarily disrepectful of others' beliefs, whereas you insist that others respect yours.  I declare you to be a hypocrite.
> 
> I make no pretense of respecting beliefs I have no respect for, nor do I require that of others.  You, however, do not follow your own rules.
> 
> Can a hypocrite be a True Christian? :rtfm:



There are forum rules. If I were to answer this, the thread would be locked. I suggest you follow the forum rules too.


----------



## TLH3rdDan

i can do that also... you are a jerk and seem to have other motives for your actions... you are always using a condesending tone to anyone who raises a question you dont like...  well as ive said my part in this and see no reason to continue this discussion... im sure you will come back with some snide comment and i wish you luck in your endeavors to justify your narrowminded views of other peoples beliefs...


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Napalm,
> 
> I might be missing the boat or point. *



You were saying that if you went oversea and committed a crime, you represented America.  I just pointed out that in fact America would disown you the second you ran afoul of the local penal codes.   That is a fact.  So, no, you don't represent America.


----------



## qizmoduis

I'm reminded of an exchange that took place a few years ago on the rather lively newsgroup, alt.atheism, where I used to be one of the denizens.  There was a regular firebreather who was on a constant campaign to convince the heathen residents that they should repent and convert, etc.  He once got into an argument regarding divorce rates among various religious groups, and somehow came up with the rather outrageous claim that the divorce rate among christian (<-- note the small 'c') couples was in the neighborhood of 0.1%.  In other words, only 1 in 1000 christian couples ever divorced.

Now, of course, that flew in the face of published statistics, that actually show that divorce rates among non-religious couples is ever so insignificantly lower than among religious couples.

It took a while, but he was finally backed into a corner, and had to explain that, his definition of christian explicitly excluded any couple that got divorced, with rare exceptions for people he personally admired.

Since True Christians never get divorced, then obviously someone who got divorced isn't a True Christian.  We found that somewhat amusing, and the less restrained expended considerable bandwidth in telling him so, in great detail.  Even the religous participants of alt.atheism found this guy to be an embarrassment.

BTW, this style of argument is also know as the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *There are forum rules. If I were to answer this, the thread will be locked. I suggest you follow the forum rules too. *



Everybody do everybody a favour here and try not to get the thread locked. I'm enjoying reading these posts and hearing all your views BUT if this thread does get locked........You will have to answer to ME!  

lol, did that sound scary or what?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by TLH3rdDan _
> *i can do that also... you are a jerk and seem to have other motives for your actions... you are always using a condesending tone to anyone who raises a question you dont like...  well as ive said my part in this and see no reason to continue this discussion... im sure you will come back with some snide comment and i wish you luck in your endeavors to justify your narrowminded views of other peoples beliefs... *



If I have a hidden motive, I like to know what it is too.   

The thing is, others have posted extensive materials and proofs. And guess what? People keep going back to square one, running in circle. Why don't you read Paul's and Abbax's posts? Those are extensive and concrete.  Yet, people don't seem to bother to read them.  And we have the same old things being asked in just another way. Going round and round.  So?


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Master of Blades _
> *
> 
> P.s Can we have no religeon bashing here.....I just want to here views etc :shrug: *



I should also add belief bashing as a big no no. :shrug:


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Master of Blades _
> *I should also add belief bashing as a big no no. :shrug: *



Bashing, no.  Well constructed criticism should be welcome, however.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Bashing, no.  Well constructed criticism should be welcome, however. *



Well you got me there.......


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *If I have a hidden motive, I like to know what it is too.
> 
> The thing is, others have posted extensive materials and proofs. And guess what? People keep going back to square one, running in circle. Why don't you read Paul's and Abbax's posts? Those are extensive and concrete.  Yet, people don't seem to bother to read them.  And we have the same old things being asked in just another way. Going round and round.  So? *



I agree.  I don't think you're hiding anything.  Everybody has an agenda, whether they wish to admit it or not.  Telling someone they have "an agenda" is pretty much the same as telling them they are using a computer to participate in this discussion.

Hidden agendas, on the other hand, are annoying.  JN isn't hiding.  I don't think anyone here is hiding anything, really.


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *You were saying that if you went oversea and committed a crime, you represented America.  I just pointed out that in fact America would disown you the second you ran afoul of the local penal codes.   That is a fact.  So, no, you don't represent America. *



Sir

I tried to just agree and say yes I missed the BOAT!

It is this attitude as an individual or as a member of a group Ifind to be my problem with people.

Have a nice day


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

I simply pointed out a legal fact.  US citizens committing crime in foreign countries do not get help from Uncle Sam. That is a fact.  And you have a problem with that?   That's just too bad.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Moderator Note:*



> _Originally posted by Master of Blades _
> *Everybody do everybody a favour here and try not to get the thread locked. I'm enjoying reading these posts and hearing all your views BUT if this thread does get locked........You will have to answer to ME!  *



THis thread is hot, but for the most part has been alot less 'in your face' than many.  Its been more civil than I expected.  There have been some 'ruffled feathers' and such but the majority has been ok, IMO.

Keep within forum guidelines, leave the 'personal attacks' out of it and keep it 'friendly' and we won't have reason to lock it.

With that said...please understand that neither I not the rest of the moderator team can read everything in this thread.  If you see a personal attack, if it gets -flameish- please use the -report to moderator- feature. If you have a personal issue with someone, either let it go, or take it private.  We will not hesitate to suspend or ban someone who gets out of control.

Thank you.


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I simply pointed out a legal fact.  US citizens committing crime in foreign countries do not get help from Uncle Sam. That is a fact.  And you have a problem with that?   That's just too bad. *




Johnny Boy,

I have nothing wrong with what you said.

Paul goes out and gets facts and answers questions.

Nightingale does the same.

In my opinion, you do nothing but be contrary to a single point within a larger post.

The fact is I did not wish to get all 'bent' or to seem to be 'bent'.
so I replied I am missing the boat or point as you said, so that the matter could drop.

I have pages of un-submitted yet type replies, that I thought better of or to sleep on first. I have not gone back to them for in most people were being civil and polite and either being a constructive member to this discussion or being an informative member of this discussion. I understood your point. You were stand on the letter of the law and the written word here and else where. That is fine. I happen to disagree that it would affect the rest of the USA when an America goes abroad and commits a crime. Legally the US Government washed there hands. Yes, but does the press or the citizens or subjects of other countries? Nope!

So either add something constructive, ask a question, or be informative. And when someone tries to walk away Let them. For they either do not wish to spend all their time writing thousands of words so you can step in pick on one or two and be contrary only to make yourself sound superior and therefore right in this point and in all of your points.

If you want to stand and yell at each other. No problem. If you want to be constructive then fine. You made a point. I said yes I might be missing the point. You could not let it drop. Fine. I lost. Yet, not on one point have I heard you reply to any of my questions to admit that anyone else might be right, if they disagree with you.

Just my opinion that you are not being constructive to this issue.
Constructive criticism is fine.

You might say:
"Hey Rich, you do know that if you did something over seas the Us Consulate would give you a list of Lawyers only and walk away"

Not the following:
"Hey Rich You missed the Boat (* AGAIN *), you just don't get it (* You ignorant XYZ *)"

You see the tone of your written word is aggressive and condescending and sometimes down right insulting. Hence my Johnny Boy comment.

As for the problem there is no problem with me. I know who I am and where I stand. To find out more about me e-mail me or call me. 248-467-9454. I have no problems discussing this is over the phone or in person, with or without a beer. You see this is a discussion to me. Oh Yes I challenged my Friend Paul by asking my questions, I baited him knowing his personality. Yet, he is not mad for having to learn more, he went out and did it for himself and to educate others. He can disagree with anything I say, for you see he has said he states these are his preferences and recognizes these are the best choices and answers for himself. In My opinion, you have not and seemed to be trying to get a conflict going. To me this is No big deal.

E-mail or call me if you wish to continue this, for I believe that no one else is interested.

Just my opinion.

Now back to your regularly schedule thread.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

Your insulting remarks mean nothing to me. So I don't respond in kind.

It is your problem that you are reading too much into simple statements of fact.

You went on and on running in circle on the same issue, ie blaming christianity itself for the human errors. Excuse me if I don't care to address your spaghetti mess.  Paul has written extensively to explain that the religion is separated from the people who committed mistakes and crimes using religion as cover.   Yet, you fail to comprehend that point. That is why you are still missing the point.   Furthermore, you put words into my mouth and read that as  "Hey Rich You missed the Boat (* AGAIN *), you just don't get it (* You ignorant XYZ *)"   That's right!  You put the emphasis there YOURSELF!    So you heap insult onto yourself, where none was there in the first place.   Do you know how ridiculous that is?  I have to burst out laughing!


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Your insulting remarks mean nothing to me. So I don't respond in kind.
> 
> It is your problem that you are reading too much into simple statements of fact.
> 
> You went on and on running in circle on the same issue, ie blaming christianity itself for the human errors. Excuse me if I don't care to address your spaghetti mess.  Paul has written extensively to explain that the religion is separated from the people who committed mistakes and crimes using religion as cover.   Yet, you fail to comprehend that point. That is why you are still missing the point.   Furthermore, you put words into my mouth and read that as  "Hey Rich You missed the Boat (* AGAIN *), you just don't get it (* You ignorant XYZ *)"   That's right!  You put the emphasis there YOURSELF!    So you heap insult onto yourself, where none was there in the first place.   Do you know how ridiculous that is?  I have to burst out laughing! *



Well you see Johnny boy you started this thread by stating that people were ignorant for making a comment about religion and making generalizations.


----------



## Rich Parsons

@ John

So I just was following your previous comments that you always fall back too. You insult and call people ignorant and unable to understand a state of grace. I know I do not for otherwise I would find the right words to communicate with you.


----------



## Rich Parsons

@ John,

I am just breaking everything up so you can get the topics.
I apologize being able to try to address multiple topics in one thread.


----------



## Pakhet

Dude, your experiences as a child were no doubt different, and in that I think you should count yourself as very fortunate.



> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Blame your parents!  Heck Christians children are taught that God loves them. Jesus loves them. The angels protect them.
> *



That's not what I was taught.  There's no need for me to go into detail, but some of the stories, movies and sermons I was forced to sit through made me physically ill...and it's really hard for a 7 yr old to sit there and take it because they're not allowed to run to the bathroom to throw up.  Threats, intimidation and physical violence were the norm.  



> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _*What are you talking about? What kind of religion that teaches children that they are unworthy?  *



Not just unworthy....worse than unworthy...alive because that's the rule...have lots of kids, because that's what god said and use them for whatever you want to because once they're yours they don't need much more consideration than the dog chained up in the backyard.  

So...I've raised my daughter with a christian background, but she's allowed to ask questions and we discuss other religions and she can read anything she wants and then we discuss some more.  because the only thing that can break the chain of religious abuse is recognizing it for what it is and making the change in yourself.  

Lisa


----------



## white belt

white belt


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Pakhet _
> Dude, your experiences as a child were no doubt different, and in that I think you should count yourself as very fortunate.
> 
> That's not what I was taught.  There's no need for me to go into detail, but some of the stories, movies and sermons I was forced to sit through made me physically ill...and it's really hard for a 7 yr old to sit there and take it because they're not allowed to run to the bathroom to throw up.  Threats, intimidation and physical violence were the norm.
> 
> Not just unworthy....worse than unworthy...alive because that's the rule...have lots of kids, because that's what god said and use them for whatever you want to because once they're yours they don't need much more consideration than the dog chained up in the backyard.
> 
> So...I've raised my daughter with a christian background, but she's allowed to ask questions and we discuss other religions and she can read anything she wants and then we discuss some more.  because the only thing that can break the chain of religious abuse is recognizing it for what it is and making the change in yourself.
> 
> Lisa



There are 60-70 millions Catholics in the USA alone. If your experience is typical, there wouldn't be any Catholics left!  Every Catholic children would have grown up and left the Church behind already. We wouldn't be having 60-70 million Catholics and church membership would not have been growing at double digit rate.

Don't get me wrong. I do not condone psychological abuse heaped  upon children for any reason.  I am sorry that you have to endure what you have been through growing up.  I am also glad that your daughter is well nurtured and guided.


----------



## Pakhet

I was raised Southern Baptist.  Sorry about that, I should have mentioned that.



> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *There are 60-70 millions Catholics in the USA alone. If your experience is typical, there wouldn't be any Catholics left!  Every Catholic children would have grown up and left the Church behind already. We wouldn't be having 60-70 million Catholics and church membership would not have been growing at double digit rate.*


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> @ John
> 
> So I just was following your previous comments that you always fall back too. You insult and call people ignorant and unable to understand a state of grace. I know I do not for otherwise I would find the right words to communicate with you.



If you "follow[ed] [my] previous comments" , you should have come across my explaination that I am not calling atheists ignorant for their belief or lack of belief. Rather I am calling them ignorant for their claim that religious people need religion as a clutch, that they are to be manipulated, that they are being harmed by religion. And also for atheists' blanket condemnation of them as being hateful and intolerant, and hypocritical.

If you followed my previous comments, you should have read  my repeated statement that I have nothing but respect for non-religious people who live an honest and decent way of life, that religious afiliation has no bearing on one's character.


----------



## white belt

1) When is now?

white belt


----------



## Nightingale

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *
> Well let me ask you this.  If I took all the writings of George
> Washington, and writings about him (during his time) and put
> it into one book, would that make you doubt his existance and
> work? *



I'm not denying Jesus of Nazareth's existance, or the good ideas that he preached.  

However, there is only one source stating his miracles.  Historical documentation (of which there is quite a bit from that time) confirm his existance.  They do not, however, confirm his miracles.  The only source I've found (there may be some that I don't know about...just remember, I'm looking for historical texts, not religious ones) for those is the bible.

Its got nothing to do with the fact that its all in one book...its that its the only book.

If you put all the writings about washington in one book, that would be fine, because there would be many other writings out there to corraborate the stories.


----------



## white belt

white belt


----------



## Nightingale

JN-

Being Wiccan will not interfere with my wanting to be a teacher.  It is recognized and protected under US law, and under anti-discrimination legislation.  Schools are more interested in my professional qualifications (Almost a Master's in Education, Credentialed in both Elementary and Secondary, one year full time experience, four years part time experience, etc) than they are in my religion, which they aren't even allowed to ASK at a job interview, and which I do not disclose to colleagues in a professional setting, simply because it is none of their business, and separation of church and state requires me to leave my religion out of the classroom unless directly asked by a student, and then I can answer the question and simply state my own personal views without preaching or attempting to convert (wiccans don't do this anyway...we believe that those needing to follow our path will seek us out, and we don't need to actively solicit followers, because it really doesn't matter which path you're on as long as it's a good one).  

The only time someone would see me and know that I'm Wiccan would be at a Wiccan function, in which case, they would be there doing the same thing I am.  My religion has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to teach sixth grade mathematics, and most schools recognize this.  About the only place where it might be a problem is down in the bible belt, and I wouldn't be applying for work there anyway.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *However, there is only one source stating his miracles.  Historical documentation (of which there is quite a bit from that time) confirm his existance. *



If you mean to say that there's quite a bit of documentation confirming his existence, I disagree--outside of the Bible, it's principally one throw-away comment by (Flavius) Josephus, isn't it? E.g., from here:



> Books XII-XX, in which [Josephus] speaks of the times preceding the coming of Christ and the foundation of Christianity, are our only sources for many historical events.





> [Josephus wrote:]
> About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.


----------



## arnisador

I want to reinforce what Mr. Hubbard said. This is a long thread and we can't read all of it. The discussion has in the large been polite and professional, in keeping with our standards; however, if there is a problem, _please_ bring it to our attention. Don't assume we've seen it. Religion can of course be a contentious issue and we're watching this thread but it's too long to be certain that we've seen everything or can remember what comment is in reference to what (that might make it worse than it appears).

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## Nightingale

no... I said there is quite a bit of historical documentation from the time.  Some of it mentiones a Jesus of Nazareth.  Most of it doesn't.  The information (that I've found so far) merely confirms his existence and doesn't go into any great detail about his life.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

On Jesus' existance:  I saw a documentary recently on either the History chanel or the Learning Chanel...was -very- interesting.  I've been trying to find out hte name as I tapes everything -except- the title.  heh.  It portrayed him as more of a rebel than we had thought, and gave the thought that Judas did not betray him, but was doing what Jesus has asked him to do.

That the reason for Judas' suicide wasn't guilt for betrayal, but something else.


Anyone here watch those chanels and can shed some light on it?

Also, I think Nemoy did an 'In Search Of' special back in the '70s that took a look at it.

There was also some discovery recently of something...I think it was listed as belonging to 'James, Brother of Jesus' or something like that...


----------



## Pakhet

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *If you mean to say that there's quite a bit of documentation confirming his existence, I disagree--outside of the Bible, it's principally one throw-away comment by (Flavius) Josephus, isn't it? E.g., from here: *



I'm not even sure you can count that even.  According to my "The Works of Josephus" (complete and unabridged) he lived A.D. 37 - c100 - so he wasn't there either.

Lisa


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *no... I said there is quite a bit of historical documentation from the time.  Some of it mentiones a Jesus of Nazareth. *



Is there another extra-biblical account of the existence of Jesus other than Josephus'? I consider the recent alleged burial box of James his brother to be decidely unconfirmed.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Pakhet _
> *I'm not even sure you can count that even.  According to my "The Works of Josephus" (complete and unabridged) he lived A.D. 37 - c100 - so he wasn't there either.*



Yes, but his account is generally accepted--he was born approx. 4 years after the death of Jesus. It'd be akin to someone born this year writing about the 9-11 tragedy. One would assume they had heard of it, read accounts, etc. It's second-best, I agree, but not to be discounted.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Pro?
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html


> "We know this because an extraordinary inscription incised on one side of the ossuary reads in clear Aramaic letters: 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,'" he wrote.



DID JESUS OF NAZARETH EXIST?
All sides to the question
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

From http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html


> Finally lets look at Jesus.  What evidence do we have the he existed? The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:
> "They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home." From his Annals, xv. 44.
> Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says:
> "Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."
> That there is any mention of Jesus at all is unususal.  As far as the Roman world was concerned, Jesus was a nobody who live in an insignificant province, sentenced to death by a minor procurator.



================================

Con?
From http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html


> What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.



and



> In the closing years of the first century, *Josephus*, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."


----------



## Mike Clarke

What religion did god belong too?

Religion is about indoctrination not faith. One is not the same as the other. Humans have done with faith exactly the same as they have done with every other concept they get their dirty little hands on, and made into a money spinner for those at the top.
Religious leaders [all of them] should hang their heads in shame at the things they do or let go on in their name.
Forget the cop-out clause of 'free will' they should take some responsibility for leading people away from kindness and understanding, and sticking them in the trenches of rightious hatred.

Does god exist? in your mind maybe. But I put him right up there with the Dillman no touch knock outs. Funny how the hand of god only works through people doing good deeds. Those doing bad ones always seem to be acting of their "own free will".

If I'm kind to someone, it's because I am, likewise if I'm not. It has little to do with some Jewish guy who lived 2K ago.
By the way, it might help if people got their facts right and stopped believing in the 'selected' stuff written long after the  man died. From my understanding he was born around Febuary/March and about three years earlier.
And he certainly didn't look like some hippy with a nice tan. People can't even deal with the truth of his image let alone his ideas.

It's not the messenger you should be focusing on, but the message, and as Martin Luthor noted many hundreds of years ago, you don't need a bloody preacher for that!

Mike.


----------



## arnisador

Hmmm, I think Josephus is the only 1st century and hence somewhat contemporary reference--others may be be secondary (tertiary?).

As to redaction of Josephus' works to include a reference to jesus, I am not an expert but I do not think this is a widely held interpretation. I may be mistaken!


----------



## Nightingale

I remember hearing the theory of the Jesus reference being added to Josephus' writings on the history channel a while back.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Moderator Note:
> 
> 
> 
> THis thread is hot, but for the most part has been alot less 'in your face' than many.  Its been more civil than I expected.  There have been some 'ruffled feathers' and such but the majority has been ok, IMO.
> 
> Keep within forum guidelines, leave the 'personal attacks' out of it and keep it 'friendly' and we won't have reason to lock it.
> 
> With that said...please understand that neither I not the rest of the moderator team can read everything in this thread.  If you see a personal attack, if it gets -flameish- please use the -report to moderator- feature. If you have a personal issue with someone, either let it go, or take it private.  We will not hesitate to suspend or ban someone who gets out of control.
> 
> Thank you. *



Thats what I wanted to say, but you forgot to say you would unleash M.O.B on them! :asian:


----------



## yilisifu

Well said.  Countless acts of terrorism and untold suffering have been wrought in the name of "freedom."  This is certainly no indication that freedom is a bad thing.  It just shows how people can twist it's concept(s) around to justify their actions.

   Every major religious faith has also been involved in similar atrocities.  It does not necessarily indicate that the theology is bad...

   Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam....they've all been scapegoats at one time or another for man's unquenchable desire to kill his fellow man.  This is to include atheistic cultures as well.

   It all comes down to each individual's faith; his or her personal relationship with God.  Not long ago, my daughter's former boyfriend (they'd remained good friends) was killed in a freak car accident.  I knew the 19 yr old boy very well and his death brought back memories of the day my own son was killed.
   As I looked at the boy in the coffin, I muttered, "It always comes down to this, doesn't it?"  For all our bravado; for all that we do and hope to accomplish in life, it always comes down to the fact that each of us is going to die.  No matter how hard we try to avoid it, no matter how famous or wealthy we become, we will all perish...some will go easily and others not so easily.  But we will all shuffle off this mortal coil.
   And at that moment; the instant of drawing the very last breath, we'd better be certain of our beliefs....because there is only one truth.  Truth is absolute.  
   In that last moment of life, our doubts will come to the fore (if we have any).  And that moment could occur at any time........crossing the street, driving to work, eating a ham sandwich.
   The only thing that is certain about life is that you will not get out of it alive.  Seek out the truth so you will be ready when death comes to embrace you.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> What religion did god belong too?
> 
> Religion is about indoctrination not faith. One is not the same as the other.


Religion is about faith. The incorrect approach to evangelism results in indoctrination.  Human error.



> Humans have done with faith exactly the same as they have done with every other concept they get their dirty little hands on, and made into a money spinner for those at the top.
> Religious leaders [all of them] should hang their heads in shame at the things they do or let go on in their name.


If you are referring to cults and tele-evangelists, you have a case.   
There are some priests that live better than the parishioners and that is wrong. But most of the religious orders live a life of poverty.

Pope John Pual certainly does not have a Swiss bank account.  Dalai Lama certainly owns no material wealth.



> Forget the cop-out clause of 'free will' they should take some responsibility for leading people away from kindness and understanding, and sticking them in the trenches of rightious hatred.


Please elaborate how the leaders have mislead them, specifically how John Pual and Dalai Lama  have preached hatred.



> Does god exist? in your mind maybe. But I put him right up there with the Dillman no touch knock outs. Funny how the hand of god only works through people doing good deeds. Those doing bad ones always seem to be acting of their "own free will".


I don't believe anyone has claimed that only Christians do good deeds.  On the contrary, scumbags are scumbags, irrespective of religion affiliation.



> If I'm kind to someone, it's because I am, likewise if I'm not. It has little to do with some Jewish guy who lived 2K ago.
> By the way, it might help if people got their facts right and stopped believing in the 'selected' stuff written long after the  man died. From my understanding he was born around Febuary/March and about three years earlier.
> And he certainly didn't look like some hippy with a nice tan. People can't even deal with the truth of his image let alone his ideas.
> 
> *It's not the messenger you should be focusing on, but the message*, and as Martin Luthor noted many hundreds of years ago, you don't need a bloody preacher for that!
> 
> Mike.



*It's not the messenger you should be focusing on, but the message*   That is what we have been saying in stressing  "separating the people from the Church" . It is the teachings of Jesus, the message, that is important.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> JN-
> 
> Being Wiccan will not interfere with my wanting to be a teacher.  It is recognized and protected under US law, and under anti-discrimination legislation.  Schools are more interested in my professional qualifications (Almost a Master's in Education, Credentialed in both Elementary and Secondary, one year full time experience, four years part time experience, etc) than they are in my religion, which they aren't even allowed to ASK at a job interview, and which I do not disclose to colleagues in a professional setting, simply because it is none of their business, and separation of church and state requires me to leave my religion out of the classroom unless directly asked by a student, and then I can answer the question and simply state my own personal views without preaching or attempting to convert (wiccans don't do this anyway...we believe that those needing to follow our path will seek us out, and we don't need to actively solicit followers, because it really doesn't matter which path you're on as long as it's a good one).
> 
> The only time someone would see me and know that I'm Wiccan would be at a Wiccan function, in which case, they would be there doing the same thing I am.  My religion has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to teach sixth grade mathematics, and most schools recognize this.  About the only place where it might be a problem is down in the bible belt, and I wouldn't be applying for work there anyway.



I don't doubt your qualification. I have come across  your posts and you are methodical and intelligent. The kids would be lucky to have you as a teacher.

I just thought that when the kids went home and told their parents that their teacher was a witch and practiced witchcraft, that would unlikely to go down well.   People who know you well, would not be concerned. But it would be a tough sell for those who don't. Most parents would have reservation about their kids' teachers being a witch.  lol  I am sure most kids think their teachers are wicked witches anyway.


----------



## Nightingale

I keep my own religious beliefs out of the classroom.  LOL. I taught for a year in CATHOLIC school!  When a student came to me with a religious question (and they did often, even though I didn't teach religion, because I had a good rapport with many of them), I would answer "well, this is what the church thinks...." or if it was something really specific that I didn't remember, I'd say "why don't you ask Father Mario, and then come back and tell me what he said, because I want to know too!"

When I'm asked about my own views I usually just say "I think everyone has the right to worship god or not worship god as they choose, in their own way."

As long as you preface any religious statements with the words "I think" and keep them pretty general, you're ok.  Teachers aren't required to keep religion out of the classroom.  They're required to refrain from pushing one religious idea over any other, because all recognized religions are seen as equal by the US government, and its against the law to favor one over another in your classroom.  As long as you use the words "I think" it makes it clear that you're stating an opinion, and as long as that opinion is farely unoffensive and doesn't really mention anyone in particular, you're ok.  however, a statement such as "I think everyone who doesn't (insert religious catch phrase such as "accept jesus into their heart, follow the path of the veddas, etc...) is going to (insert unpleasant afterlife type place)"  would be unacceptable.

When I'm asked about my religion in the classroom, I just say "I'm a spiritual person, but not really a religious one. I believe there's a god and that god does magnificent things, but I don't go to church because I haven't really found one that I like." 

They tend to believe that my views are similar to theirs with this answer, although I never listed any religion in particular.

The only way for a parent/student/admin to know that I'm wiccan is to run into me at a wiccan supply store or wiccan event.  Both of those  (at least, the real ones) are very hard to find if you don't know exactly where you're going and what you're looking for, so if someone finds me there, they know what I'm doing, but I know what they're doing, so nobody is going to say anything.  Many wiccans are open about their path, but many are not, so most of us wouldn't say anything about someone else we saw at an event, especially if it could harm their career or personal life.  We believe that everything you do comes back to you threefold, so we really try to spread good around and not put others in uncomfortable situations....but there are always bad apples in every bunch...

but if someone did make a stink about it and it cost me my job, that school district would have the world's biggest lawsuit on their hands, cause the ACLU would be all over me! LOL. They're not stupid.  If anything, it would make them afraid to fire me for fear that I'd scream "discrimination!"  I've seen this happen with schools being afraid to fire someone who's part of a protected group (racial minority, sexual minority, etc...) even though they're an awful teacher, because they're afraid of the legal reprocussions.  In california, being wiccan would protect me more than it would hurt me as a teacher.  

Sure, districts try to give teachers rotten classes and grades they don't want to teach to make them leave...problem is...I like them all.  I prefer working with remedial kids with problems...what are they going to do? make me teach honors classes?! I'd be in heaven! LOL.  They could make me teach kindergarten (the usual punishment for middle school teachers who the district wants to get rid of), but I love the little ones too!  They could toss me into special education...but wait...that's what my specialty is!

There's really no place a district could put me that I wouldn't want to be, because in my eyes, children are children.  They have different challenges, and different situations when they go home, but basically they're all kids who need an education.  But, if a district tried to get rid of me because I was a rotten teacher, I'd leave on my own...you can tell a rotten teacher:

1. they hate their job...because they're no good at it, and are tired and frustrated.

2.  they place all the blame for failure on the children and none on themselves...a good teacher recognizes that students fail because of a combination of parents, environment, student, and teacher.

lol. I need to stop writing novels and get my tail to work or I'm gonna be late! have a good day, everyone.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> I keep my own religious beliefs out of the classroom.  LOL. I taught for a year in CATHOLIC school!  When a student came to me with a religious question (and they did often, even though I didn't teach religion, because I had a good rapport with many of them), I would answer "well, this is what the church thinks...." or if it was something really specific that I didn't remember, I'd say "why don't you ask Father Mario, and then come back and tell me what he said, because I want to know too!"
> 
> When I'm asked about my own views I usually just say "I think everyone has the right to worship god or not worship god as they choose, in their own way."
> 
> As long as you preface any religious statements with the words "I think" and keep them pretty general, you're ok.  Teachers aren't required to keep religion out of the classroom.  They're required to refrain from pushing one religious idea over any other, because all recognized religions are seen as equal by the US government, and its against the law to favor one over another in your classroom.  As long as you use the words "I think" it makes it clear that you're stating an opinion, and as long as that opinion is farely unoffensive and doesn't really mention anyone in particular, you're ok.  however, a statement such as "I think everyone who doesn't (insert religious catch phrase such as "accept jesus into their heart, follow the path of the veddas, etc...) is going to (insert unpleasant afterlife type place)"  would be unacceptable.
> 
> When I'm asked about my religion in the classroom, I just say "I'm a spiritual person, but not really a religious one. I believe there's a god and that god does magnificent things, but I don't go to church because I haven't really found one that I like."
> 
> They tend to believe that my views are similar to theirs with this answer, although I never listed any religion in particular.
> 
> The only way for a parent/student/admin to know that I'm wiccan is to run into me at a wiccan supply store or wiccan event.  Both of those  (at least, the real ones) are very hard to find if you don't know exactly where you're going and what you're looking for, so if someone finds me there, they know what I'm doing, but I know what they're doing, so nobody is going to say anything.  Many wiccans are open about their path, but many are not, so most of us wouldn't say anything about someone else we saw at an event, especially if it could harm their career or personal life.  We believe that everything you do comes back to you threefold, so we really try to spread good around and not put others in uncomfortable situations....but there are always bad apples in every bunch...
> 
> but if someone did make a stink about it and it cost me my job, that school district would have the world's biggest lawsuit on their hands, cause the ACLU would be all over me! LOL. They're not stupid.  If anything, it would make them afraid to fire me for fear that I'd scream "discrimination!"  I've seen this happen with schools being afraid to fire someone who's part of a protected group (racial minority, sexual minority, etc...) even though they're an awful teacher, because they're afraid of the legal reprocussions.  In california, being wiccan would protect me more than it would hurt me as a teacher.
> 
> Sure, districts try to give teachers rotten classes and grades they don't want to teach to make them leave...problem is...I like them all.  I prefer working with remedial kids with problems...what are they going to do? make me teach honors classes?! I'd be in heaven! LOL.  They could make me teach kindergarten (the usual punishment for middle school teachers who the district wants to get rid of), but I love the little ones too!  They could toss me into special education...but wait...that's what my specialty is!
> 
> There's really no place a district could put me that I wouldn't want to be, because in my eyes, children are children.  They have different challenges, and different situations when they go home, but basically they're all kids who need an education.  But, if a district tried to get rid of me because I was a rotten teacher, I'd leave on my own...you can tell a rotten teacher:
> 
> 1. they hate their job...because they're no good at it, and are tired and frustrated.
> 
> 2.  they place all the blame for failure on the children and none on themselves...a good teacher recognizes that students fail because of a combination of parents, environment, student, and teacher.
> 
> lol. I need to stop writing novels and get my tail to work or I'm gonna be late! have a good day, everyone.



Very good post. You have given a lot of thought into your situation. I admire your dedication and enthusiasm for teaching.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> *As to redaction of Josephus' works to include a reference to jesus, I am not an expert but I do not think this is a widely held interpretation. I may be mistaken!*



The redaction theory has come under considerable strain with the discovery of the Arabic text of Josephus' _Wars of the Jews_; after all, why would Islamic scholars redact a document to reflect a position favorable to Christian monks?

It should also be pointed out that having a single source does not render the matter fiction: we have only one source for the legend of Atlantis- the tale related thirdhand by Plato in _Timaeus_ and _Critias_.  Yet, there is now considerable belief in the scientific community that Atlantis did in fact exist on the island of Thera in the Aegean Sea, and there has been archelogical remains discovered lend credence to this theory.  

Likewise, for many years, the existence of the City of Troy was scoffed at by the scientific community, because the only accounting of its existence came from the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_, written by Homer sometime around 750 BC, a full four-and-a-half centuries after the Trojan war supossedly took place ( if Homer actually existed; that, too, is now a matter a some contention ).  It wasn't until Heinrich Schliemann uncovered the ruins in 1873 that anyone took the story seriously.



> *I remember hearing the theory of the Jesus reference being added to Josephus' writings on the history channel a while back.*



I would take anything put forth by the Discovery Network/TLC/History Channel with a large grain of salt.  This is the same network that, when members of the martial arts community complained about the inaccuracy of information presented about the martial arts in a few of the specials they did last year, we were told that the Discovery Network took no responsibility for the information presented, because the shows are produced by outside contractors.


----------



## Mike Clarke

Johnathan,

To answer your questions.

Having faith is about having faith, religion is about thought control [doctrine]. Try being a catholic priest if your only 'sin' is you're a woman. It's okay to be a child molester though, the church will look out for you then alright!

Maybe you can tell me why one human being is any closer to god than another? Or why anyone would think their opinions have any more value than anyone elses when it comes to their relationship with their god?

Religions are set up on exactly the same lines as martial arts associations. A guy at the top [pope or whoever?], his country chief instructors come next [cardinals], then the regional chief instructors [bishops], then the club instructors [priests], and then the students [parishioners]. The money is generated at the bottom and works it's way to the top as fast as those up there can pull it towards them.

As for the pope not having a Swiss bank account, I think you'll find the vatican has! The pope lives for free in his palace of obscene wealth, [the vatican city], where they did a deal with the Nazis not to enter if they promised to turn away any Jews that came begging for their lives and refuge, and while today many hundreds of thousands of catholics world wide live in abject poverty. Shame on him for letting this be so. Mind you, if he were to buck the system he may well go the way of his predecessor.

As for the Dali Lama, I can't say how he gets his income, but then again, he dosen't really need one when people are falling over themselves to hang off his every word and put him up in five star luxury while he jets around the world.
So much for the simple life eh?

At least we agree that scumbags are scumbags regardless of religious affiliation. I'm just saddened that so many religious groups have so many as members. I think the annual budget in America alone was $5.000.000 just to keep catholic priests out of the courts for sexual assaults on children. I guess god alone knows what they spend world wide eh?

You show me someone who is deeply religious, and I'll show you a fanatical bigot who's only highly developed sense is one of control of others. All in the name of god of course!

If you want to see religious heatred go to Northen Ireland, Africa, Middle East, Indoneisia, South America, gp almost anywhere on the planet, and you'll see it. Human Error again eh? 

You go to heaven when you die if you like, I'll see you up there, but don't expect me to catch you when you stand in front of your god, and find out he a dead ringer for you.

Mike.


----------



## Cruentus

> Having faith is about having faith, religion is about thought control [doctrine]. Try being a catholic priest if your only 'sin' is you're a woman. It's okay to be a child molester though, the church will look out for you then alright!



Sure, make a bunch of broad generalizations and expect everyone to take your side. Being female has never been a sin, and molesting children has never been O.K. in the Catholic Church, or almost any world religion.



> Maybe you can tell me why one human being is any closer to god than another? Or why anyone would think their opinions have any more value than anyone elses when it comes to their relationship with their god?



I can tell you that you should ask God for answers to these questions, not a web-talk forum. Your straying from the issue here anyways. The question that was asked was regarding "What religious beliefs do you follow," not "How well can you challenge other people's beliefs. 




> Religions are set up on exactly the same lines as martial arts associations. A guy at the top [pope or whoever?], his country chief instructors come next [cardinals], then the regional chief instructors [bishops], then the club instructors [priests], and then the students [parishioners]. The money is generated at the bottom and works it's way to the top as fast as those up there can pull it towards them.



I love the way you equate all religions and martial arts organizations with pyrimid scams.  You want to talk about money, while at the same time negating the entire purpose of the religion themselves, which has little to do with money. Also, there are many martial arts organizations out there that do a great service for there members. Oh, but lets not pay any attention to these facts, lets instead make more broad generalizations. 



> As for the pope not having a Swiss bank account, I think you'll find the vatican has! The pope lives for free in his palace of obscene wealth, [the vatican city], where they did a deal with the Nazis not to enter if they promised to turn away any Jews that came begging for their lives and refuge, and while today many hundreds of thousands of catholics world wide live in abject poverty. Shame on him for letting this be so. Mind you, if he were to buck the system he may well go the way of his predecessor.
> 
> As for the Dali Lama, I can't say how he gets his income, but then again, he dosen't really need one when people are falling over themselves to hang off his every word and put him up in five star luxury while he jets around the world.
> So much for the simple life eh?



I have already explained the money position in regards to the Catholic Church in a previous post. You might want to reread that. But, of course, if you want to continue to believe that every Buddhist monk and member of the cloth out there lives in the lap of luxury, then go ahead. Heck, believe what you want, that is what this thread is about, isn't it? Just remember, there are people out there who still believe that the world is flat, despite all of the evidence against it. And just like we can tell those people anything we want, and they will not change their minds, I could tell you whatever I want, but if your mind is made up already then it is more productive talking to a wall.



> You show me someone who is deeply religious, and I'll show you a fanatical bigot who's only highly developed sense is one of control of others. All in the name of god of course!



Ah.....so YOU are bigoted against people who are religious. Well, a bigot is a bigot to me, and being bigotted against someone of any religion or way of thought is just as bad as being bigotted against someone of race. I just like to know who I'm talking to.
Thank you for showing everyone your true colors.



> If you want to see religious heatred go to Northen Ireland, Africa, Middle East, Indoneisia, South America, gp almost anywhere on the planet, and you'll see it. Human Error again eh?



We've discussed this at length already. The answer is "Yes". Eh?



> You go to heaven when you die if you like, I'll see you up there, but don't expect me to catch you when you stand in front of your god, and find out he a dead ringer for you.



Well, Mike, a nice way to end your beautiful post. Prejudging someone else, and speaking for God. Many people haven't liked the way Johnathan Napalm has argued on this thread, but the one thing he hasn't done is condem anyone, or say that God will condem an individual on this forum. And he's supposed to be the fanatic? Well, Mike, congradulations for completely crossing the line.

Now, maybe you missed the point of this thread, or maybe you just let your emotions get the best of you. I'm not sure, but let me explain. This Thread is ment to be a constructive discussion on Religious beliefs (more specifically, beliefs regarding the "God" concept). Despite some minor flame wars, it has basically stayed that way. This thread is not ment to be a slamming of other's beliefs or religions. And, even if you don't like someone, this thread is not intended to facilitate personal attacks.

Now if you want to constructively state what your beliefs _are_, that would be great. If you have a question or polite critique of/for someone, also fine. I just hope that you have a different side to you then what you have shown us here.

However, if you can't refrain from attacking others, then I feel that your a clown who should be suspended until you can behave. I'm not a moderator, but this is just my opinion.

Thanks. 
God bless you, and have a holy day.


----------



## Mike Clarke

Hello Paul,
Say, your not 'THE' Paul are you, one of the gang of twelve from way back?

I take your comments on board and thank you for them. 
I could care less who thinks what about god or any other issue, just so long as they don't expect me to go along with them having some kind of moral high ground or insight into how to live a good life. One of the hallmarks of religion is this arrogant belief that 'They' are right and the rest of us should some how be shown pity for not being able to see the error of our ways.

I love the way Religious people always try to set the agenda for what can and can't be talked about too. Pop your head into my world and start dribbling your clap-trap at me, and you can bet you'll have it hit on. Oh, and by the way, exactlly which god are you suggesting I put my questions to? Oh, don't tell me, it wouldn't be the "One true god" would it?

Keep your blessings to yourself Paul, I don't need them from you or any other bunch of folk who hold religious convictions. Now if you were just a plan old ordenary nice guy [which you may well be] than I'd be happy to sit and shoot the breeze with you any time. the doctrine is alive and well with you that's clear, let's hope it serves you well?

Your post has just endorsed what I said about 'religious folk'.
You live in world of control and doctorine and you hate it when anyone speaks to that. 

Stop passing the buck Paul and take responsibility for yourself without resorting to some mythical third party to take care of you.

Mike.


----------



## Abbax8

If a person is calling themself a Christian, then it is encumbent on them to strive to live a life accordingly. A Christian life is a life of unconditional love for God, Yourself and Others. To Quote the Bible- Love is Patient, Love is Kind, Love is not quick tempered. Love does not rejoice with wrong doing but rejoices with the Truth. Love is not Pompous. Love believes all things, bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things. I may not have this quote in order, but this is what summarizes Christian Life, this is where the rubber meets the road. Easy to Do- NO!! Yet I am inspired because I have met some people in my life who struggle daily to live this out. Some are priests and nuns, others are laypeople- married and single. All are past their 40's. I wonder what that says about humans. I know when I was younger I was more hot headed. I find it offensive when someone makes broad generalizations, but I will try to be patient. Since this is a budo site, read the above quote, and think about how it compares to the philosophy most arts say they have, and the Journey it's adherents are supposed to be on. With Respect To All.


                                                                Peace
                                                                  Dennis


----------



## yilisifu

Mike......
   If you don't care about God and don't care about what other people think of your refusal to adhere to any religious beliefs, then WHY did you enter this thread?

   I don't recall anyone jumping anybody about their religious beliefs...so far, you're the only one who has done that.

   This thread began by asking what religious faiths were followed by members of this board, and why.  You've twisted it way out into left field.


----------



## Shinobi

Abbax: Right on. That's quite a respectable viewpoint. I admire your determination.


----------



## Cruentus

Not sure what your trying to prove here. Passing the buck? What the hell are you talking about? I take full responsability for everything I say and do, so I really don't know where that is coming from. 

You call religious people arrogent? Um...how about read YOUR post, and tell me what that sounds like.

I'm glad that you "love the way religious people set the agenda," but the agenda of this thread has nothing to do with that. Master of Blades asked a question, which set the agenda. Other people who have been able to maintain the discussion here have also set the agenda; and those other people are of every different walk of life, not just Christian.

Oh...and the issue of "which God" only seems to be an issue for you. There are plenty of people who have posted with many different concepts of God. There were many athiests who posted also. We have all been able to respect each others beliefs, and there hasn't been any problems until you posted. Just some heated discussions that have all ended in friendship and better understanding, for the most part. I even clarified "God concept," but that wasn't enough for you either. You seem to be the one who is close-minded here, and there really isn't much I can do about that.

Also, my posts, as well as yours proves nothing about religious people. Nothing I have said alludes to a "World of control and doctrine," and my only disdain here was, and still is, the manner in which you post. All you've done so far is attack and slam people who are different then you. I have tried to give you the opportunity to clarify or perhaps retract your statements, or just plain add something of value to the discussion. Yet, you refuse, and you continue to act like a clown. How can anyone have a discussion with you under the circumstances? And, if you don't want to discuss anything, then why did you post in the first place?

Well it's obvious that you have issues. Oh well, your problem. But once again, if your not willing to have a constructive discussion on a thread that has been pretty cordial (for the most part) then stay off it. Until you have something constuctive to say, I don't think that I need to respond to your mindless attacks. So, you now have three choices: 1. Don't respond 2. Respond constructively, or 3. Be a Big fat baby and attack me and religious people some more in an immature attempt to get the last word. I guess the choice is yours.

And by the way, Mike, I would be happy to stick my head into your world and "dribble my clap trap" anytime, anyplace. And if you want to hit on it, bring it. 

Or we could "shoot the breeze" like ordinary nice guys also, if you want. Bring the pain, or the beers, I always say!  
:cheers: 

And as for me keeping my blessings to myself, fat chance! 

Mike.....

May the Lord Bless and Keep you.
May he let his face shine upon you.
May he give you his grace,
and May he give you his peace.

Your annoying martialtalk Doctrine dribbling power hungry Catholic,

Paul
(not to be confused with the New Testiment evangalist Paul, who is also not to be confused with the 12 apostles, of whom Paul was not.)

P.S. *Shinobi...* I totally agree with you this time.  Nice post Abbex8!


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

I am surprised at Mike's posts in this thread. You strike me as a mature, well learnt, open minded and reasonable man, in your other posts. 

But what I see here is a reflection of opinions that betray a lack of information on the subject at hand, to put it mildly.  

Paul is not a bigot nor a fanatic. On the contrary, he is apparently one of the most gentlemanly, tolerant and informed Catholics. I have read some of your posts and the articles on your site.  I don't believe you are as close minded as you have presented yourself here in this thread.  There is no need to perceive each other at the extreme end of the spectrum here.

In reply to your post.
I can't believe any one can seriously think that Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama live a life of princely luxury.  I can't believe a reasonable person would call any religious person a fanatical bigot.  Would you call a pacifist Shinto priest a fanatical bigot?  It does not bother me personally to be labelled as such.  But such label hardly makes any sense at all on millions of decent men and women who are kind and compassionate.   You should really do some research on John Paul and the Dalai lama. You would be surprised at the simple life they live.  There are a lot of scumbags tele-evangelists and charlatans who are in it for the money. But you know what they say about generalizing.

"..Maybe you can tell me why one human being is any closer to god than another? Or why anyone would think their opinions have any more value than anyone elses when it comes to their relationship with their god?.."

I don't believe any human being can turly honestly claim that he/she is closer to god than another person.  Only God can know that. 

As to relationship with one's god,  people do think theirs are correct. But not all people try to impose theirs onto you, nor would they necessary think that yours are wrong.  On the contrary, I couldn't care less what your faith is or is not. What kind of person you are, is what really matters.

"....It's okay to be a child molester though, the church will look out for you then alright! ..."
No one denies that the way the problem is handled is disastrously incompetent.  But you can't be serious as to suggest that the Church protects such criminal behavior.  Just like anyone else, every Catholic wants those pedophile cirminals removed and imprisoned!

"... I'm just saddened that so many religious groups have so many [scumbags] as members..."
No more than any other organizations. I would say there is a normal distribution, statistically.


----------



## Mike Clarke

Humble Pie Time I Think!

Johnathan,  I'm sorry if my comments offended you, I had no rite to jump in on your conversation and unload like that. 

Paul,  Never been called a big fat cry baby before, you really know how to hurt a guy . Again, if my comments caused offence, I'm sorry. But please, enough with your prayers already, I had enough of them growing up in the catholic church, and find them offensive at this point in time.

Yilisifu, Good question, why did I post? No idea really, something I read triped a switch and I reverted back to my old ways before I stumbled onto MA's. I can tell you something though, I'm wishing I hadn't.

So, to all,  if anything I've said has caused any real upset, I'm sorry for it. Having a strong personality  [I've always believed] means being able to admit when you get things wrong. 
The manner of my contribution to this post was a mistake and for that I'm sorry.

Mike.


----------



## Zoran

And people wonder why so many wars started because of religion.:shrug: 

It does tend to strike a nerve...for some...doesn't it. I guess we haven't come as far as we would like to fool ourselves into believing. Especially when it comes to tolerance of others beliefs.

Anyway, it's just an general observation and is not meant to be directed to any one person or as an insult.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> 
> Johnathan,  I'm sorry if my comments offended you, I had no rite to jump in on your conversation and unload like that.



Didn't actually bother me. Just that your views are wrong. But, you are entitled to them.


----------



## Cruentus

> Again, if my comments caused offence I'm sorry



No problem. I got a little heated myself, and I apoligize for that.

And don't worry, no more blessings....(I was kinda being a butthead about that anyways  )

:cheers:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Zoran _
> And people wonder why so many wars started because of religion.:shrug:
> 
> It does tend to strike a nerve...for some...doesn't it. I guess we haven't come as far as we would like to fool ourselves into believing. Especially when it comes to tolerance of others beliefs.
> 
> Anyway, it's just an general observation and is not meant to be directed to any one person or as an insult.




All I have to do is to call you *AN IGNORANT FOOL*.


Did that "strike a nerve"?    lol


----------



## Cruentus

> Just that your views are wrong.



I apoligize in advance here, because I going to be a bit nit-picky. You might want to say something like "It's just that I felt that your views were wrong" or "It's just that I disagree with some of your views" instead of telling just someone that their views are wrong.

Like I said, I don't want to be nitpicky, and if you had said that to me I wouldn't care, but some people read into stuff like that a little too much. Even though I know you are not trying to be holier-then-thou, others might think that you're being condensending or close minded, which adds to the stereotype of religious people.

I mean no disrespect. Just my thoughts....

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

> All I have to do is to call you AN IGNORANT FOOL.
> 
> 
> Did that "strike a nerve"?  lol



Zoran, are you going to take that? Go blow up his house!:redeme: 


Yea, I don't know why wars happend in the name of religion either.:rofl: 

O.K. Enough screwing around....I got a business meeting in exactly 2 minutes.

Have a good morning everyone!


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> I apoligize in advance here, because I going to be a bit nit-picky. You might want to say something like "It's just that I felt that your views were wrong" or "It's just that I disagree with some of your views" instead of telling just someone that their views are wrong.
> 
> Like I said, I don't want to be nitpicky, and if you had said that to me I wouldn't care, but some people read into stuff like that a little too much. Even though I know you are not trying to be holier-then-thou, others might think that you're being condensending or close minded, which adds to the stereotype of religious people.
> 
> I mean no disrespect. Just my thoughts....
> 
> :asian:



Who the hell do you think you are?

LMAO. j/k there

Points well taken.

I have already answered Mike's points in a previous post already. Mike is wrong about the Pope and the Dalai Lama being greedy bastards .  He is also wrong about the church protecting child molesters.  But, his personal views on his belief are not wrong, and are not for anyone else to judge neither.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> Zoran, are you going to take that? Go blow up his house!
> 
> Yea, I don't know why wars happend in the name of religion either.:rofl:
> 
> O.K. Enough screwing around....I got a business meeting in exactly 2 minutes.
> 
> Have a good morning everyone!



I was trying to demo that "striking a nerve" is the result of perceived personal insult, rather than insult on religion.


----------



## tshadowchaser

The mods and administrators have been extreamly tolerant in this thread so far.  Lets back off from calling each other names and slamming one another. 

 Please everyone take a deep breath sit back a moment and lets all agree to let the other guy/girl have there own thoughts on this subject. 

 Religion is always a verry touchy subject.  If a person believes they usually belive with all their heart , and the if not they belive that fully also.   IF its one god, a triad of gods , or a hundred the point is that the person respects and worships something that they consider to be of a higher more powerful  level of exsistance. On the other hand if they do not belive in such a being they just dont.  No amount of discussion will covert someone who truly believes one way or another.

War have been fought over religion and in the name of a higher being sense the concept of the higher being came into exsistance. Thats how much people belive in their beliefs.

 Lets take that deep breath and agree not to slam each other or say he/she started it first.  This has been an interesting thread lets keep it FRIENDLY

tshadowchaser
:asian:


----------



## Zoran

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *All I have to do is to call you AN IGNORANT FOOL.
> 
> 
> Did that "strike a nerve"?    lol *



You should be getting a package...special delivery...soon.:moon: 

  

P.S.
The above is meant as humor, I try to leave my nerve striking for MA class.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Folks, I think I've found the ultimate list of religions and phylosophies.  Now, please bare with me, (Err, beer, no, um, bear? On damn....) anyways, 

I think this says it all....


> · Taoism: **** happens.
> · Confucianism: Confucius say, "**** happens."
> · Buddhism: If **** happens, it isn't really ****.
> · Zen Buddhism: **** is, and is not.
> · Zen Buddhism #2: What is the sound of **** happening?
> · Hinduism: This **** has happened before.
> · Islam: If **** happens, it is the will of Allah.
> · Islam #2: If **** happens, kill the person responsible.
> · Islam #3: If **** happens, blame Israel.
> · Catholicism: If **** happens, you deserve it.
> · Protestantism: Let **** happen to someone else.
> · Presbyterian: This **** was bound to happen.
> · Episcopalian: It's not so bad if **** happens, as long as you serve the right wine with it.
> · Methodist: It's not so bad if **** happens, as long as you serve grape juice with it.
> · Congregationalist: **** that happens to one person is just as good as **** that happens to another.
> · Unitarian: **** that happens to one person is just as bad as **** that happens to another.
> · Lutheran: If **** happens, don't talk about it.
> · Fundamentalism: If **** happens, you will go to hell, unless you are born again. (Amen!)
> · Fundamentalism #2: If **** happens to a televangelist, it's okay.
> · Fundamentalism #3: **** must be born again.
> · Judaism: Why does this **** always happen to us?
> · Calvinism: **** happens because you don't work.
> · Seventh Day Adventism: No **** shall happen on Saturday.
> · Creationism: God made all ****.
> · Secular Humanism: **** evolves.
> · Christian Science: When **** happens, don't call a doctor - pray!
> · Christian Science #2: **** happening is all in your mind.
> · Unitarianism: Come let us reason together about this ****.
> · Quakers: Let us not fight over this ****.
> · Utopianism: This **** does not stink.
> · Darwinism: This **** was once food.
> · Capitalism: That's MY ****.
> · Communism: It's everybody's ****.
> · Feminism: Men are ****.
> · Chauvinism: We may be ****, but you can't live without us...
> · Commercialism: Let's package this ****.
> · Impressionism: From a distance, **** looks like a garden.
> · Idolism: Let's bronze this ****.
> · Existentialism: **** doesn't happen; **** IS.
> · Existentialism #2: What is ****, anyway?
> · Stoicism: This **** is good for me.
> · Hedonism: There is nothing like a good **** happening!
> · Mormonism: God sent us this ****.
> · Mormonism #2: This **** is going to happen again.
> · Wiccan: An it harm none, let **** happen.
> · Scientology: If **** happens, see "Dianetics", p.157.
> · Jehovah's Witnesses: >Knock< >Knock< **** happens.
> · Jehovah's Witnesses #2: May we have a moment of your time to show you some of our ****?
> · Jehovah's Witnesses #3: **** has been prophesied and is imminent; only the righteous shall survive its happening.
> · Moonies: Only really happy **** happens.
> · Hare Krishna: **** happens, rama rama.
> · Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this ****!
> · Zoroastrianism: **** happens half on the time.
> · Church of SubGenius: BoB Shits.
> · Practical: Deal with **** one day at a time.
> · Agnostic: **** might have happened; then again, maybe not.
> · Agnostic #2: Did someone ****?
> · Agnostic #3: What is this ****?
> · Satanism: SNEPPAH TIHS.
> · Atheism: What ****?
> · Atheism #2: I can't believe this ****!
> · Nihilism: No ****.



It ain't mine, but I hope it brings a small smile to ya, and relieves a little of the 'tension' thats been in here as of late.

Peace everyone.


----------



## Nightingale

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Cthulhu

Oddly enough, not one said: holy ****



Cthulhu


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

The author of that list is very learnt. . 

What a talent! LMAO!


----------



## Mike Clarke

Johnathan,
I never called either the pope or the dalai lama "Greedy Bastards". These are your words not mine.
I don't believe I'm wrong at all about the antics of the church in hiding sex offenders.
You beleive I'm wrong, but that's not the same thing as me being wrong is it. 
Granted I hold differing views to you, but how you can say for sure that you are right and I am wrong in my beliefs on such things as this is unclear to me.
My appology to you and others came as a result of the way I entered the post and tried to shove my views down yours and others throats. 
Please don't fall back into that self ritious smuckness that seems to be the hall mark of so many reliegious folk.
If you have some hard evidence that god exists, lets see it.

With respect,
Mike.


----------



## Nightingale

God is something you have to take on faith...

there is no hard evidence.  That's why its faith instead of fact.  We won't know who's right and who's wrong until its too late to tell anyone.

Its one of those things...there's no evidence truly for it...but there's no evidence truly against it...its just a gut feeling that you have to go with. You're either right or wrong, but there's no way to prove it, and whether you believe or not, it does no harm as long as you show reasonable respect for the views of others, and for the world around you.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> Johnathan,
> I never called either the pope or the dalai lama "Greedy Bastards". These are your words not mine.
> I don't believe I'm wrong at all about the antics of the church in hiding sex offenders.
> You beleive I'm wrong, but that's not the same thing as me being wrong is it.
> Granted I hold differing views to you, but how you can say for sure that you are right and I am wrong in my beliefs on such things as this is unclear to me.
> My appology to you and others came as a result of the way I entered the post and tried to shove my views down yours and others throats.
> Please don't fall back into that self ritious smuckness that seems to be the hall mark of so many reliegious folk.
> If you have some hard evidence that god exists, lets see it.
> 
> With respect,
> Mike.



Mike,

You are right. Those were my words.

I am not saying you are wrong on your belief. But I don't think you are correct on what you said about the Pope and the Dalai Lama. Neither one lives a luxurious life style. Neither one preaches hatred nor bigotry. 

The Pope lives in a museum, not a city of obscene wealth.  Should they melt down all the gold and silver from all those historical artifacts or auction them, with other art works, off to the highest bidders?   Should all the public museums auction off their collections and use the proceed to fund social projects?   

The Dalai Lama does not jet around the world to enjoy a lavish life style. 

As for the church protecting the sex offenders problem, the bishops overseaing those priests obviously in effect, swept the problems under the rug.  There is no directive from the Vatican to cover things up nor to protect the pedophiles. I am not sure the Vatican was even informed. 

Regarding to your view as to whether God exists or not, there is no way that millions and millions of decent people are to be condemned simply because they are not catholics or not christians. Else, what kind of God would that be? I don't think He is that petty as to condemn those who do not worship Him.  So, who are we to judge another person's belief?

One can say someone is wrong on secular, factual issues. When it comes to faith,  God loves all of us. Who are we to judge another person?  Of course, you have nuts who think it is their duty to God, to judge and condemn others.  In my view it is a case of label vs substance. There are christians who are in name only. There are non christians who live an honest, and decent life. 

Nightingale made a very good post.



> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> God is something you have to take on faith...
> 
> there is no hard evidence.  That's why its faith instead of fact.  We won't know who's right and who's wrong until its too late to tell anyone.
> 
> Its one of those things...there's no evidence truly for it...but there's no evidence truly against it...its just a gut feeling that you have to go with. You're either right or wrong, but there's no way to prove it, and whether you believe or not, it does no harm as long as you show reasonable respect for the views of others, and for the world around you.


----------



## Cruentus

*Nightengale:* Well said!  

*Mike Clarke* : I hear what you are saying. It depends on what you mean about hard evidence, though. What does hard evidence mean, really? Do we need mathematical proofs? Scientific? Or do we need to see with our own eyes? In person, or are photographes O.K.? 

You see, I don't know what the answer is. I think that "proof" is going to be different for each individual. It kind of goes back to some of the old Buddhist philosophies regarding the senses, but I believe that "proof" is subject to a persons own senses.

Some people, for instance, need to literally see to believe. Since I realize that vision is a very limited sense in that you are relying on light to bounce off of the pixels of an object back into your eye, then you are relying on refraction and your brain to make sense out of it all. Then when one realizes that if you are looking into the sky at a star that is 22 light years away; this means that it has taken 22 years for that light to reach your eyes. You are looking at an object as it looked 22 years ago. This means that if that star blew up right before your eyes, you would be literally seeing an event that actually happend 22 years in the PAST. There's something to think about. Plus, there obviously are those out there who aren't able to see with their eyes, yet they can still percieve reality.

The same arguement can be made for all of the senses. I feel that the senses are very limited in that matter. When you break it down, all of these things; our senses, time, space, matter...all these things are limitless in one sense, yet we are limited by them to a certain degree. For us, these things are also very subjective.

Sorry to get off on the tangent, but I think you see what I mean. Some people need to see to believe; but for me, that doesn't fly. Just because I hear a noise in the night, or see an obscure light in the sky, that doesn't mean that I saw or heard God, an angel, an alien, a ghost, or the CIA. The arguement goes both ways, however. Just because I can't percieve anything in my office right now as I write this, that doesn't mean that there isn't someone or something watching me right now.

O.K....that's eerie to think about. I think that those damn ninjas and underware gnomes are hidding in my office again. Damnit! They're trying to steal my underpants again :ninja: Just because I can't see them, that doesn't mean they're not there!  

Returning to the discussion, how about scientific proof? Some people need that to believe anything. Well there is scientific proof leaning towards an idea of a God, such as the "last burst of life" theory and the Big bang theory. I am not a scientest, but I do know that the theories pointing towards a "God" exist probably more-so then the theories that point away from a God existing. Science does not provide imperical evidance for or against God either way. Science, however, falls short in a similar manner that our senses do. This is because we can only prove with science with what we can physically test with the scientific method. We must be able to percieve it with our senses, or our instruments in order to experiment, or test. Since there is so much still that we are unable to test, science falls short, at least to me, on the matter.

How about mathematical proofs. Well mathematics isn't designed to prove or disprove God, but you can go beyond your senses to prove something in mathematics. The fact is, there are many mathematical concepts that point to an idea of "God," at least more so then not. For instance, our senses can physically percieve numbers taken to the 3rd power. In Geometry, (or physically speaking), your 1-dimension (the power of one) is your point, your 2-dimensional (the 2nd power or "squared") objects exist on a plane, and your 3-diminsional (3rd power or "cubed") can exist in space, according to our perceptions. Einstien already theorized that the 4th deminsion (power of 4) is actually time, caused by the droping of a 3 dimensional object (like a planet) on a 2 demensional plane (how he percieved "outer-space"). So we can only geometrically percieve up to the power of 4, yet we can take a number long past the power of 4; infinitly if we wish. So, mathematically and geometrically speaking, this idea in mathematics "proves" that there are other "dimensions" that exist outside of our own, of which we cannot percieve.

A little less star-trek sounding would be chaos theory. Chaos theory in a nutshell is best given by an example: a butterfly flutters it's wings while at the same time there is a strong gust of wind, which a causes a chain reaction of cause and effect in the universe that eventually causes a rain storm later that afternoon. Chaos theory is basically the mathematical explaination of the cause-effect relationship of everything, which can be proven mathematically. This mathematical theory points to an interconnectedness of all things, which is a subject that many religions have been talking about without the mathematical proofs to back these theories for ages.

I won't continue with the math example, but I'm sure you can see my point. Besides, Arnisador is the mathematician on this forum, not me!   

How about logic, which is both mathematical in nature, but is also conceptual. For me logic is my "proof". Logic is the reason why I don't really think that there are underwear gnomes and ninjas in my office, but that I do beieve that a God is watching everything I do. I can logically reason out one, and logically refute the other. There are many logical proofs out there pointing towards God existing. It would appear to me (although I could be mistaken) that there are more logical proofs pointing towards a God concept then not. In my first post on this forum, I provided everyone with one. Although that is my personal example, that is also an example of a classic logical proof that many religious scholars have used for centuries. And, There are many more out there. The funny thing about logical proofs regarding the "God concept" is that to date many of these logical proofs pointing towards the conclusion that there is a God have not been logically proven wrong. With logic, something can always be disproven if there are "holes" in the proof, but that has yet to happend with many of these proofs. I cannot say the same, however, for the logical proofs "disproving" God. They exist, but to me, they have to many holes, with logical ways of disproving the theories. Not to say that these proofs aren't out there, but I have yet to see one proof against God that couldn't be successfully refuted by logic. This is what has made me have my "faith" to this day.

Now, a person can believe what they want to, of course, and I will respect those beliefs. In terms of proof, however, that would depend on what you mean by proof. No matter what, though, what you are really saying is that you need it to be proven to YOU. This is fine, of course, but understand that the proofs leading to the conclusion that "there is a God" do indeed exist. It is my opinion, however, that if simply someone refuses to logically listen to these proofs, and determined to not believe in a God concept no matter what proof there is, then no one will change that persons mind. That doesn't mean that they will be right, however.

These is just my take on things, though. I of course respect what you say in that it hasn't been "proven" for you yet. I also respect what you are saying to Johnathan Napalm. I tried to tell him earlier that by telling someone "you're wrong," even if (just for arguements sake) they outright are, is not the way to go about it. First of all "wrong" is really subjective, just like our senses and our realities. That doesn't mean that "wrong" doesn't exist, it just means that because no human being is perfect with an answer to everything, that "wrong" is usually a matter of an opinion that needs to be agreed or disagreed upon. Secondly, by telling someone they are "wrong" outright, you just piss them off, either because they know they are and they feel stupid, or because they don't feel that they are and they think that your stupid. Either way, it's not a good way to have a discussion. I told him this nicely, however, yet he hasn't listened to me or agreed with me yet. There isn't much else I can do on the matter.

Well, I am not out to tell you that "your wrong" even if my perception/opinions contrast yours.

I got a little deep here, but I tried to keep it simple. Hopefully I made some sense to everyone.

Have a good day!
 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

You finished your post before I finished mine! Oh well, you clarified yourself a bit in terms of the "wrong" thing, which makes me think that you might be seeing what I'm saying. I hope you don't take offense to my comments in the last post, and I'm sure Mike appreciates the clarification.

The thumbs up was for your "Pope living in a museum" example. That is a very good way of explaining the situation, I think.

Peace...
:asian:


----------



## Master of Blades

Hey cool........this has been the longest NON-HEATED thread on Martial Talk that I've ever been bothered to read  

Thanks everybody :cheers:


----------



## rmcrobertson

I'm afraid that none of the logical arguments cited prove--or even strongly point to--the existence of God. Nor are logical arguments able to.

Let's take the "interconnectedness of all things," argument as an example. Things in the physical universe are interconnected because they're parts of relatively closed systems. The basic rules which "connect," them are fairly well known (gravity, for example; air pressure), and the fact that the effects of change of one aspect of a large, relatively-closed system are impossible to fully predict is well known. Where's God in all this?

It is much easier to logically suggest that there's no God--Occam's Razor--is it more likely that there's a Big Guy up there who watches every spaarrow fall and Has a Plan, or that the God business is something we thought up because the universe is big, meaning is hard to find, and we're scared of the dark? See Freud, "The Future of an Illusion," for more...

Anybody out there change their mind because of the last paragraph? I should hope not. Logic, reason, evidence, simply don't apply to proving that there's a God. It is--as several posters have noted--a matter of faith. It's another way of knowledge, folks.

The interesting question, to me, is why it is that some religious folks need the tools of science and reason to justify their faith...

Thanks; interesting discussion.


----------



## Cruentus

You wrote:

Let's take the "interconnectedness of all things," argument as an example. Things in the physical universe are interconnected because they're parts of relatively closed systems. The basic rules which "connect," them are fairly well known (gravity, for example; air pressure), and the fact that the effects of change of one aspect of a large, relatively-closed system are impossible to fully predict is well known. Where's God in all this?

That depends on your outlook. Ask yourself why are we in a closed system? And why does this system of Chaos seem to adhere to any sort of rules. To me it is very logical to deduce that there must be something outside of this closed system making the rules. If there were nothing out there making the rules, then the rules wouldnt exist. This very logically and comfortably leads one to a God concept. This is indeed the simplest solution (ahem occams razor).

You also wrote:

It is much easier to logically suggest that there's no God--Occam's Razor--is it more likely that there's a Big Guy up there who watches every spaarrow fall and Has a Plan, or that the God business is something we thought up because the universe is big, meaning is hard to find, and we're scared of the dark? See Freud, "The Future of an Illusion," for more...

To you it may seem logical to suggest that there is no God. In reality, however, I would say that your logic falls short, in a sense that it fails to explain the whys. Why the rules? Why have a purpose? Why are we alive? The God solution, when you look at it this light, is in fact the simplest one (ahem..Occams Razor) when trying to explain these whys. The atheism theorists and certain scientists who have attempted to explain these whys without a God concept have gotten very complex in their solutions indeed, which violates Occams Razor.

For the record, I am only using the Occams Razor argument to show you how it could be used in my proposed solution. I dont actually adhere to Occams Razor fully, nor do I use it often in a discussion. For those of you who dont know Occams Razor was a theory from a 15th century William Ockham (Occam is latinized) that is commonly known to mean The simplest solution is most often correct. This is actually a misconception from what he actually wrote which was: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate". This translates to: "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". For more on Occams Razor you can refer to W.M. Thornburgs The Myth of Occams Razor (1918). Besides all of that, Occams razor doesnt say that the simplest solution is ALWAYS correct, as most people assume. The Razor, when you look at it, doesn't tell us anything about the truth or otherwise of a hypothesis, but rather it tells us which one to test first. The simpler the hypothesis, the easier it is to shoot down if it is incorrect. That is why I dont use Occams Razor very often.

A note also on Freud: Although he had done a lot for contemporary psychology, I would say that his arguments regarding God are about as unadvanced as your uneducated, unresearched, non-believer. Please dont take that comment the wrong way either; Im not assuming that all non-believers are unresearched or uneducated, but I am saying that Freuds opinions regarding the matter are only that advanced. He does nothing to propose an adequate solution as to any of the whys afore mentioned. I find it especially odd, actually, that he doesnt make any achievements within his own practice regarding the matter. He doesnt really solve the problem of why the human psyche would be afraid of the dark (or the vast universe) and where that fear comes from. If you fail to explain that, then you cant adequately refute the God concept as being a fabrication based off of these fears. He probably just ended the discovery process on that theory for the same reason that our contemporaries do it; he just figured he was right no matter what anyone else said, so why expand on it or take into account a different viewpoint. Some people are just to smart for their own good, I think.

You wrote:

Anybody out there change their mind because of the last paragraph? I should hope not. Logic, reason, evidence, simply don't apply to proving that there's a God. It is--as several posters have noted--a matter of faith. It's another way of knowledge, folks.

I agree it is a matter of faith. Yet, I think that any truth, or fact for that matter, is also a matter of faith. You can think of facts and theories (not just scientific and religious ones, but ordinary everyday ones) as being on a scale of certainty. Up at the top end we have facts like "things fall down". Down at the bottom we have "the Earth is flat". In the middle we have "I will die of heart disease". Some theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it. Skepticism is usually directed at claims that contradict facts and theories that are very near the top of the scale. I would say that the God concept is towards the top. Whether you decide to believe in the proofs, is a matter of faith. That doesnt mean that your faith has to lack logic; this is the misconception. 

Now, did anyone change their minds reading anything I have written so far? Some maybe, others maybe not. That really isnt the point for me. No one likes to be sold or convinced of anything. Our society is way to egotistical for that. To be convinced of something, especially when it comes to the subject of religion, means to have to admit that your previous notion was wrong. Well, God forbid anyone do that. My purpose, really in all my posts, isnt exactly to convince in a way that proves you wrong and me right. My only motive is to offer alternative solutions in hopes that people will do their own research, and find the truth for themselves. Its not about anything egotistical for me, such as I must PROVE something, or CONVERT someone, or CHANGE someones mind. Only you can change your own mind, no matter how much sense, or non-sense, I make.

One thing that I think that you would be hard pressed to convince anyone after reading some of my (as well as others) posts is that religion lacks logic, or common sense. There are countless examples against that. Just because you choose a different path, that doesnt exactly mean that other people who dont believe what you believe are illogical. To say that religion, or religious faith has NOTHING to do with logic, is to imply exactly that.

Oh, and one last thing. Although I think that my post should have answered your question already.you asked why religious folks need science and reason to justify their faith. Well, for the same reason the non-religious need reason to justify their lack of faith. We are all on the same journey, and we are all looking for answers. Religious as well as non. My solution would be probably the simplest: we need to reason out our own answers because thats the way God made us.  

Well the one thing I would agree with you on....
This is an interesting discussion indeed.

Cheers!:cheers: 
:asian:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by PAUL _..... I hope you don't take offense to my comments in the last post....


Not an issue.


----------



## Mike Clarke

Paul,
I hear what you're saying and thank you for the time it took to explain your ideas, no wonder you're in P.R., you can put a good [or bad] spin on anything. No disrespect here, just an observation on your posts. Proof is indeed subjective and I agree with you that, like so many other things, it all depends on what a person is prepared to accept as proof.

Johnathan,
I think I said in my first post [or second] that I saw a big difference in religion and faith. I have no problems with people holding on to a sense of faith in a god, but I don't have the same views regarding the reasons for the existance of the worlds various religions.

I don't accept your reasoning that the pope lives in a museum, it's a palace with it's own army. Infact it is an independent state with it's own laws. What value is art and wealth to those facing death from starvation? And "YES" they should sell it off and feed the people. Who are thay saving it for? you can't go in and see it, nor can the faithful from around the world who contribute to it's upkeep.

"Thou shalt have no false gods before me." Who said that?
I've always thought it was Abraham's god, the one so many have faith in today. I don't think he was being very politicaly correct when he said that.
But we seem to have moved on from those days, and now we can tolerate other gods, can't we?
What seems to be more of an issue for many, is religious tolerance, and that is in extreemly short supply around the world today, just as it has always been.

Faith, I can see some value in.  Religion, well that's a whole new collection plate.

Again, with respect to all.
Mike.


----------



## Cruentus

> I hear what you're saying and thank you for the time it took to explain your ideas, no wonder you're in P.R., you can put a good [or bad] spin on anything. No disrespect here, just an observation on your posts.



:lol: I've been told that on more then one occasion. No offense taken at all. I have to change my profile, though. I am with a global financial firm currently as an analyst. I made the career switch at the end of October. Currently, I am being prepared to do some consulting work that is to par with professional analysts for certian key industries and affluent individuals.

That's even funnier.....people actually pay me for my opinions!:rofl:


----------



## Nightingale

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> 
> The interesting question, to me, is why it is that some religious folks need the tools of science and reason to justify their faith...
> 
> Thanks; interesting discussion. *




I think people ought to reexamine their faith when it completely flies in the face of scientific fact, however.  

Its the things that we can't prove one way or another (is there a god, what happens when we die) that should be addressed by religion.

How our world works is the realm of science...

Why it works is the realm of faith.


----------



## arnisador

The problem lies in getting everyone to agree on the definitions ("What is God?") and assumptions, not on the logic per se.


----------



## Cruentus

> The problem lies in getting everyone to agree on the definitions ("What is God?") and assumptions, not on the logic per se.



I agree......somewhat. I think that the disagreements generally do occur by getting people to AGREE with definitions, assumptions, and also what constitutes "proof" and "truth" and what doesn't. These are the things that I feel are a matter of "faith" if you will. Once these are decided upon, however, logic is what comes into play. When "argueing" I try to stay within the realm of the agreed upon definitions and assumptions with who I am talking to, and use logic within those boundries. Sometimes definitions, then, need clarification. However, although this is not always successful, I find that it is easier to use logic within the realms and understandings of who I am talking with to get that person to see my points.

The whole "logic" point is something I have stressed in this discussion because people who have choosen a religion are constantly being blamed for being "illogical" in there beliefs. We are told that our beliefs contradict science, and basic "common sense." Then when someone like myself comes along and uses "common sense" and proves that logic is important when choosing to follow a religion, and also that there are scientific "facts" that could possibly point towards the idea of God, then we are blamed for having a lack of faith, or for not playing by the unsaid rules ("why is it that some religious folk need the tools of science and reason to justify their faith...").
So, really, if someone is determained to not see things from a different perspective (not that they have to agree) then it is a lose-lose situation for the advocate for religion.

I try to see things from the other persons perspective before I respond to anything. The hope is that I will then be able to better understand them (and their definitions, assumptions, and perceptions) to help me better understand myself. Then, if I do not agree, I can use logical reasoning to explain why.

  :asian: 
PAUL

P.S. I am one long-winded dude. Yea, come on....don't act like y'all weren't thinking the same thing!


----------



## qizmoduis

PAUL,

Regarding logic, please review the following link:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

I would like to see a logical argument that supports your position on the existence of the christian deity, but I have yet to encounter one.  First-Cause, Argument from Bible, God of the Gaps, Argument from Design, Fine-tuning, Population, Consequences, etc. are not valid and have been refuted beyond any resuscitation attempts.  If you can come up with something that actually makes sense, I'd love to hear it (or see it, in this case).  Don't forget: your argument should not only be valid, it must also rest on supported premises.  So far, you have only claimed to use logic and common sense.  You haven't actually presented anything along those lines in support of your position.  And importantly, don't attempt to shift the burden of proof.  It isn't up to me to prove that God doesn't exist.

You said:

>P.S. I am one long-winded dude. Yea, come on....don't act like >y'all weren't thinking the same thing!

Never crossed my mind for an instant 


:rofl:


----------



## Cruentus

1. Thus far, I think that I have used logic to support my views. I can see how or why someone like yourself, or others here don't agree with those views. However, I am really having trouble seeing how you can say that I haven't used logic to support my position. Seriously, I can't see it. :idunno: 

2. Of course my arguement should be valid. Can you please clarify exactly what you mean, however, by "it must rest on supported premises,"? I just feel I need more clarification.

3. Thanks for the link!  I would be happy to look it over and see what I come up with. This may take some extensive review, however, so I hope you don't mind if it takes me til next week or so to respond.

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

O.K....that was quicker then I thought. I did review the web site. I'll say also, for the record, that your one of the few "athiests" who reason out your athiesm. Most athiests through my experience say that is what they are, but really they do "worship" something (whether it be themselves, science, or what have you) which doesn't make them a genuine athiest. You, my friend, are the genuine article.

I did like the "logical falicies" portion. That was pretty cool.

I can see what you are saying, to an extent, but I still don't agree with what you are saying, or the "primise" of the athiest "logic."

In a nutshell, the logic that I think is often used, which is faulty, is the idea that "Because other solutions exist, then the 'God' solution must be wrong." I feel that this is what is implied through the athiest way of thought. This logical falicy is "argumentum ad ignorantiam," which is in fact included in the website.

Many Christians make the same mistake by doing what you asked me not to do, which is shift the burden off proof; "God exists because it hasn't been proven otherwise." Although I think that this is an important point, this alone doesn't "prove" Gods existance. That falicy goes both ways, however; "God doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven that he does," is also a falicy.

So, this puts us around in a circle. I never said that I can prove the existance of God with logic. I would be famous if I could do that. I did say that I felt that the evidence used with logic (which I feel I have put together in a few examples), however, points more-so to the existance of God, then not. This is "proof" enough for me. I also did say that logic hasn't been able to refute God's existance. I'm not shifting the burden of proof, I'm just stating the fact. That fact is not my only basis for believing in God, however. (for if that was my ONLY basis, then yes, it would be a falicy).

In terms of premise...we are again on the subject of "truth." If you can't get me to believe in the premise that satalite photo's of the earth, coupled with scientific evidance, is not fabricated, then you'll never prove to me that the world is round. You see...? We can argue premise all day long, yet get no where.

The Athiest website does much to refute the idea's of religion, but does it do anything to explain, or offer an alternative solution to the "whys" that started religion in the first place? Not anything logical or convincing from what I've seen. Anyone can find a way to refute anything, but that doesn't make that person correct, especially if they can't offer a "better" or "more logical" solution.

So...Once again, I feel I have already given a logical reason, in my very first post percisely, as to why I think that the "God concept" is the way to go. If you want to try to refute any of my arguements, fine. But let's do it point-for-point instead of vaguely pointing me towards some web-site that supports your views and saying "See....you don't use logic because this website supports what I am saying (and happends to have a cool list of some logical falicies)." That would be "argumentum ad populum."


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

Mike Clarke:


> *I don't accept your reasoning that the pope lives in a museum, it's a palace with it's own army. Infact it is an independent state with it's own laws. What value is art and wealth to those facing death from starvation? And "YES" they should sell it off and feed the people. Who are thay saving it for? you can't go in and see it, nor can the faithful from around the world who contribute to it's upkeep.*



Umm...actually, you can; the Vatican recieves serveral hundred thousand tourists every year.  The proceeds from those tourists visiting those works of art go toward the treatment of AIDS victims in Africa and Asia, as well as famine relief.  The Cistine Chapel was particularly interesting- I never realized that Michaelangelo had such a vindictive sense of humor.
Your arguement "they should sell (all the artwork) off and use the money to feed the poor" has several flaws to it, not the least of which is the sheer economic reasoning (it makes far more sense to charge admission to the museums at the Vatican than to sell of the artwork for a one-time sum; it's simple long-term investment policy).  There is also the fact that most of these works of art are gifts to the Church from the faithfull, and as such the Church has an obligation to keep those gifts for future generations of the faithfull.  It is not much different than a family heirloom- an object that is handed down from generation to generation.

RMcRobertson:


> *See Freud, "The Future of an Illusion," for more...*



*snort* Please.  As Carl Jung pointed out, Freud's reasons for rejecting the existence of God had little to do with logic, and everything to do with justifying his own deviant desires.


----------



## Cruentus

Ooooooo! I wasn't even going to go there, but you picked up my slack!  

I liked both the financial arguement ragarding the Vatican, as well as the Carl Jung reference.


----------



## Cruentus

A disclaimer for myself....

One thing I learned new from that website was the differance between "weak" athieism and "strong" athiesm. I always thought of true athiests to be "strong" athiests (For those of you not familiar, I am refering to the link to an athiest website that Quizmodus gave us on a previous post which defines these terms). Very interesting. You learn something new every day!


----------



## arnisador

(As with most statistics, I made that number up.) 

It seems to me the difference between an atheist and a theist is whether they are an atheist with respect to 3000 religions or only 2999!

Given the extremely high correlations between one's religion and the religion of one's parents/birthplace, the argument that it's a logical decision fails in the large.

That isn't bad. Science, including logic, is one way of knowing, faith is another. This is the non-overlapping magisteria model.

I've known scientists who were deeply religious yet still did good science. They approached science on its terms and religion on its terms; they largely treated science as a "game" with its own rules. Its conclusions meant little more to them than the outcome of a chess game.

These are different approaches to knowing the world. I really think logic is of little value in religion. If you use the tools of science you disprove religion (by Occam's razor if nothing else); if you use religion you disprove science. Fundamentally, though, which tool you choose is a personal choice and cannot be made logically.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> ...I think I said in my first post [or second] that I saw a big difference in religion and faith. I have no problems with people holding on to a sense of faith in a god, but I don't have the same views regarding the reasons for the existance of the worlds various religions.


I don't have a big problem with this. Organized religion is to facilitate the cultivation of faith. It is not faith itself. Since it is an organization, it comes with inherent human errors and frailty.  


> I don't accept your reasoning that the pope lives in a museum, it's a palace with it's own army. Infact it is an independent state with it's own laws. What value is art and wealth to those facing death from starvation? And "YES" they should sell it off and feed the people. Who are thay saving it for? you can't go in and see it, nor can the faithful from around the world who contribute to it's upkeep.


Dennis_Mahon addressed this issue.



> "Thou shalt have no false gods before me." Who said that?
> I've always thought it was Abraham's god, the one so many have faith in today. I don't think he was being very politicaly correct when he said that.


That is the First Commandment.  It has nothing to do with political correctness.  When Moses lead the unruly bunch out of Egypt, he brought forth the 10 Commandments.  Simple rules/truth to maintain social harmony while they wondered in the desert. (Forgive my simplification here)



> But we seem to have moved on from those days, and now we can tolerate other gods, can't we?
> What seems to be more of an issue for many, is religious tolerance, and that is in extreemly short supply around the world today, just as it has always been.


We tolerate other gods for other people.  LOL, christians are still not allowed to have "other god".

The ever loving and ever forgiving God, loves all people all the same. (Aren't we all God's children?)  Therefore, salvation for all who are pure in heart, irrespective of affiliation or non-affiliation.  At least that's the way I feel. I understand that may not reflect how other christians feel. 

Honestly speaking,  today's most serious religious intolerance is in Islamic societies.  It is made worse by the cultural brutality of closed societies. You are talking about a barbaric bunch who believe in cutting your infidel throat so they can receive reward from Allah.



> Faith, I can see some value in.  Religion, well that's a whole new collection plate.


Collection plate is voluntary donation in the Catholic Church.  The collection plate is not sufficient to pay for the utility. The way the Roman Catholic church operates is to go after the super rich parishioners. They are the ones with the money and the properties.   This is  the same way colleges go after the successful alumni.  If you are rich and you are a catholic, you are going to feel real BAD saying no to the Church.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> That isn't bad. Science, including logic, is one way of knowing, faith is another.
> 
> I've known scientists who were deeply religious yet still did good science. They approached science on its terms and religion on its terms; they largely treated science as a "game" with its own rules. Its conclusions meant little more to them than the outcome of a chess game.
> 
> These are different approaches to knowing the world. I really think logic is of little value in religion. If you use the tools of science you disprove religion (by Occam's razor if nothing else); if you use religion you disprove science. Fundamentally, though, which tool you choose is a personal choice and cannot be made logically.



The tools of science neither prove nor disprove religion. The tools of religion do not prove nor disprove science.

Most scientists realize that there are gaps in the theory of evolution. Most christians do not take creationism literally.
I just think that the living system is far too complex to have evolved by chance alone.  On the other hand, I don't think God created the T-rex neither. I don't think we can all trace out common ancesters to just Adam and Eve.

I agree with Nightingale's post. 


> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> ....Its the things that we can't prove one way or another (is there a god, what happens when we die) that should be addressed by religion.
> How our world works is the realm of science...
> Why it works is the realm of faith.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

Here is a link to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html


----------



## yilisifu

At the same time, we have to admit that science changes from time to time.  Things that I was taught many years ago in high school (having to do with subatomic particles, for example) are now regarded as incorrect "theories" and new ones have been introduced...  Evolutionists admit that their science is actually a theory rather than a science; it has never been proven although it is taught as indisputable fact in many schools.  A number of evolutionists admit that evolutionism is actually a religion of sorts because it is mostly based on faith rather than any hard evidence.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *Evolutionists admit that their science is actually a theory rather than a science; it has never been proven *



The same is true of the theory of gravity. The first measurement of the speed of gravity--showing it was finite and roughly equal to the speed of light--was reported within the past three months. We didn't have any evidence that gravity moved at finite speeds until then and hence the theory was worefully incomplete; we still aren't sure if gravitons carry it or if it's a field (whatever that might mean!). Yet, people are still reluctant to do flying side kicks off 11 story buildings. The theory of relativity conflicts with relevant quantum theories. Really, this argument is principally a misapprehension of how the term "theory" is used by scientists. Evolution is the only _scientific_ theory explaining the diversity and similarity of species on the planet. It may be right, wrong, or (most likely) somewhere in between, but it's good science. That's all the more clear as we compare genomic sequences and get molecular confirmation of taxonomic classifications that had previously been made based on phenotypic effects.

The Tobacco Institute always found scientists who said that smoking didn't cause cancer, and people will always find biologists who say evolution isn't correct. I knew a mathematical statistician who didn't believe in the Central Limit Theorem--and theorem is an unequivocal term; that has been rigourously and logically shown to be accurate by formal mathematical proof. The Raelians are smart enough to clone a baby (maybe!) but think we're evolved from aliens. Go figure.

Scientific standards _do_ change, and science isn't the only way to get at the truth. You either accept science as a method--in essence, making one a scientivist even if one is not a scientist--or not. But once you accept science and its methods, evolution is an excellent example of those methods. Like the caloric theory of heat or the four elements that comprise all matter, it may someday be shown to be defective or even wrong; but it still follows the scientific method. Unlike those other cases, though, there's no competing theory with any currency.

If you reject scientific explanations then of course you may reject evolution out-of-hand. If not, while gaps in the evidence may be found, errors in the reasoning would be difficult to find. See e.g. this recent work on the matter.

What you were taught in high school regarding subatomic particles was more likely to have been intentionally simplified (the Bohr model) rather than wrong per se; much of the subatomic theory relevant to chemistry, where one usually sees it, was well understood by the 1930s.


----------



## Nightingale

This is the scientific definition of the word "Theory"

Theory - a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events

Theory in science isn't like a "theory" as we commonly use the word to mean a guess or an idea. By definition, a theory has gone through considerable criticism and attempted falsifications.  It isn't just someone's random idea.  Some Christians say that evolution doesn't concern them because it's "only a theory." Presumably they think that the word "theory" means about the same thing as a "pipe dream." But the term theory, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments.

Many opponents of the teaching of evolution cite its status as a theory as part of their objection.  These people believe that a scientific theory is nothing more than a hypothesis, a belief, or mere speculation.  In fact, a scientific theory is one that has its basis in observation of the natural world, formulation of testable hypotheses, and experiments that rigorously attempt to falsify those hypotheses.  A scientific theory, therefore, is one step removed from a scientific law, such as the law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics (entropy).  Evolution has undergone much rigorous testing over more than a century, with the result that it has gained the status of scientific theory. 

In science, the facts are the "what" and the theory is the "why".

By definition, a fact is what is witnessed upon observation.  It isn't something that you have to prove. It is just something that "is", like the fact that Martialtalk exists.  It can be observed.  There is no need to set up experiments that prove it exists, we simply have to watch it exist.  That is why we can't say "the fact of evolution."  because no human was around to witness it, and although we can see it in small areas of our world today (known as microevolution), we can't see it on a large scale because of the finite nature of our lifespans, so evolution must always remain a theory.  In the semantics of science, a fact does not have explanatory or predictive power.  It simply exists. Instead one speaks of hypotheses, theories, and laws as ways of organizing, explaining, and extrapolating from facts.

Many evolution opponents attempt to portray scientists who espouse evolution and an old universe as atheists.  In fact, many scientists, including evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, astronomers, and cosmologists are devoutly religious.  Some even accept the scientific evidence showing that the known universe originated, and has evolved, over the last 15 billion years while believing that an omnipotent designer (God) planned and set it into motion, and is still watching over it.    These are not mutually exclusive concepts.


----------



## rmcrobertson

I'm not going to get into all of this--except to note that the definitions of scientific theory advanced by Arnisador and Nightingale are altogether correct--but I will say this, in defense of poor old Freud. 

"His deviant desires," eh? Would this be the same Jung who wrote as an apologist for Hitler, while Freud recognized a group psychosis when he saw one, identified Hitler as what he was, and got the hell out? The Freud whose sisters died in camps? The Freud who--if you'd bother to read, say, his "Dora," case and his innumerable self-analyses--was quite well aware of the limits of his own ideas and his own biases?

There's little point in my arguing about this. Some prefer the Jung who provided so much ammo to Joseph Campbell's maunderings and the superiority of men over women, to say nothing of his influence on that gorgonzola cheese of an intellectual, George Lucas. Some prefer Freud's humanity, analysis, and skepticism. Me? I with Siggy.

If you'd like to attack Freud, show some evidence that you've read his work. It's the same problem with my students who want to write essays attacking Darwin: they won't read his works to see what the ideas and arguments are!

I'll stick with W.H. Auden, "In Memory of Sigmund Freud:"

He wasn't clever at all;
He merely told the unhappy Present to recite the Past
Like a poetry lesson till sooner or later it faltered at the line where

Long ago the accusations had begun,
And suddenly knew by whom it had been judged
How rich life had been and how silly,
And was life-forgiven aand more humble...

No wonder the ancient cultures of conceit
In his technique of unsettlement foresaw
The fall of princes, the collapse of 
Their lucrative patterns of frustration

If he succeeded, why, the Generalised Life
Would become impossible, the monolith 
Of State be broken and prevented
The co-operation of avengers.

Of course they called on God, but he went his way
Down among the Lost People like Dante, down
To the stinking fosse where the injured
Lead the ugly life of the rejected

And showed us what evil is: not, as we thought
Deeds that must be punished, but our lack of faith,
Our dishonest mood of denial,
The concupiscence of the oppressor.

I have to tell you--having been a little over-serious--give me this over Jung's apologies and justifications for racism and thinking women are inferior (it's all, "archetypes," don't you know), absolutely any day.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> ......  In fact, many scientists, including evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, astronomers, and cosmologists are devoutly religious.  Some even accept the scientific evidence showing that the known universe originated, and has evolved, over the last 15 billion years while believing that an omnipotent designer (God) planned and set it into motion, and is still watching over it.    These are not mutually exclusive concepts.



My point exactly! Thank you!  I think I begin to have a very good impression of Wicca.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> ....If you reject scientific explanations then of course you may reject evolution out-of-hand. If not, while gaps in the evidence may be found, errors in the reasoning would be difficult to find.....



First of all, I don't believe any one rejects scientific explainations. Secondly, when there are gaps in the evidence, then the theory is NOT complete. Which also means there exists the high probablity of error in the reasoning.  Yet, It doesn't necessary mean you reject the theory in whole.


----------



## yilisifu

Yes, except that evolution fails the standards of following the "scientific method" altogether.  Microevolution is a fact; evolution within a species - certain creatures adapting naturally to changes in their environment...but macroevolution; the evolution of, say, cows into whales (which is one of the evolutionist's theories) fails the tests of the scientific method.
  What I don't like about it is that it is taught as absolute fact in schools here when it is no more than a theory.


----------



## chufeng

A wise Chinese scholar once said that if one were to compile all of the written works and be able to comprehend them...the bulk of knowledge would be outweighed by the bulk of ignorance...

Truth is no one knows...

For those who would argue against a particular belief...any argument you can offer will be insufficient to change their minds.

For those who hold to a particular belief...no argument will be sufficient to move them from that position.

Paradoxically, they might both be correct ... 

Until one crosses the veil between the now and "what comes after" it is all speculation...then again, I could be wrong.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> [A wise Chinese scholar once said that if one were to compile all of the written works and be able to comprehend them...the bulk of knowledge would be outweighed by the bulk of ignorance...



He obviously didn't know about the internet.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> ...For those who would argue against a particular belief...any argument you can offer will be insufficient to change their minds.
> 
> For those who hold to a particular belief...no argument will be sufficient to move them from that position.
> 
> Paradoxically, they might both be correct ...
> 
> Until one crosses the veil between the now and "what comes after" it is all speculation...then again, I could be wrong.



None of us harbors the expectation of changing people's mind with what we state.  Views, opinions and facts are shared. Hopefully we learn something from each other. That's all.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *when there are gaps in the evidence, then the theory is NOT complete. *



This applies to the theories of gravity, relativity, and especially quantum mechanics, just to name a few. Indeed, very few scientific theories are "complete"--heat is quite well understood, but the theory of light leaves us with lots of questions (does wave/particle duality really make sense to anyone?).



> *
> Which also means there exists the high probablity of error in the reasoning.*



No, that's fallacious reasoning. You're conflating evidence and inference.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *but macroevolution; the evolution of, say, cows into whales (which is one of the evolutionist's theories) fails the tests of the scientific method.*



How so?



> * What I don't like about it is that it is taught as absolute fact in schools here when it is no more than a theory. *



Why don't you have the same complaint about the other 'mere' theories taught as if they were facts in the schools--gravity, for example, or heat conduction? How oil or diamonds are formed, which also requires a long time and can't be observed?

As to evolution, in Darwin's time the objection against macroevolution might obtain, but knowing what we do know about DNA, mutation rates, crossover phenomena, etc., and how similar the DNA of all primates is, and how it's closer to those of other mammals than say of avians, it seems to me that the mechanism of macroevolution is clear--it's the same as for microevolution, just given more time. How else to explain all the near modern human species--_Homo erectus_, etc.? All microevolution? Couldn't enough microevolution add up to macroevolution?


----------



## Nightingale

we can observe one kind of virus (or something else that replicates rapidly, like plants) turn into another kind of virus entirely... for example, HIV has been traced back to SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which infects apes.  SIV cannot infect a human.  HIV cannot infect an ape.  They are two different things, but one came directly from the other.  But we know for a fact that HIV is a mutation of SIV, by looking at the earliest HIV specimens we can find.  

Viruses are something that we can observe mutating and evolving.  This is why there is a different species of flu each year, and you have to get revaccinated.  You're always and forever protected against any flu that you get a shot for, but the virus mutates, and you have to get protected against the new strain.  Evolution in action.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> 
> No, that's fallacious reasoning. You're conflating evidence and inference.



I think you are mixing theory with law.  A theory is just that, a theory.

In many situations, there are conflicting evidences.  You cannot be absolute with your inference.


----------



## Nightingale

a law is called a law because it:

a.  fits the evidence
b.  can be observed directly
c.  has been well tested and has stood up to much scrutiny

Gravity is a law because it:

a. fits the evidence... the explanation fits the facts
b. you can observe it... this is why the apple fell on Newton's head.
c.  has been well tested... we have lots of scientists trying to figure out WHY it works, but we know for sure that it does work.

a theory is a theory because it:

a.  fits the evidence
b.  cannot be easily observed in its entirety
c.  has been well tested and has stood up to much scrutiny

Evolution is a theory because it:

a.  fits the evidence... we have the fossil record, and the scientific principle that something can't come from nothing.
b. we can see microevolution, but not large scale evolution
c.  we've had scientists testing this theory for decades. nobody's come up with anything better yet

Simply put, the theory of evolution must remain a theory because we simply can't observe its happening on a large scale because our lifetimes are too short.  Right now, its the best explanation we have, and that's how its taught in school (at least, in the schools I went to).  

Evolution is (or should be, at least under California state standards) "the best explanation we have right now because it is the only explanation at the moment that fits ALL the evidence."


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> Why don't you have the same complaint about the other 'mere' theories taught as if they were facts in the schools--gravity, for example, or heat conduction? How oil or diamonds are formed, which also requires a long time and can't be observed?


Diamonds can be synthesized by emulating natural process, ie subjecting carbon to super intense pressure.

As for oil, there is another theory. This theory states that oil was formed when the earth was formed from stardusts.  I forgot the scientist name. But he did discover oil deposit based on this theory, in regions where the experts thought there couldn't be any. I saw that documentary so long ago. Sorry my memory is sketchy on this.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> ...Simply put, the theory of evolution must remain a theory because we simply can't observe its happening on a large scale because our lifetimes are too short.  .....


That is why the evolution process can be observed in virus and bacteria. Their life span is short enough, relative to ours,  for the effect to be noticeable.



> Evolution is (or should be, at least under California state standards) "the best explanation we have right now because it is the only explanation at the moment that fits ALL the evidence."



Does it fit "ALL" the evidence?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

I find it mind boggling to contemplate the possiblity of something as complex as the living system, be it animal or plant life, to have evolved from a single cell carbon based life form.  It is like randomly arranging a pile of alphabets and then come up with a literary masterpiece.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *In many situations, there are conflicting evidences.  You cannot be absolute with your inference. *



This is a far cry from "high probablity of error" as you said earlier though.

Yes, there isn't a single inference--competing theories are the rule. In fact, evolution is special in that there are so few competing scientific theories--look at the variety of particle/string/etc. theories in quantum physics, for spacetime of varying dimensions.

To *nightingale8472*, there is an historical/semantic issue to what is called a law as well as the ideal you describe. As you imply, there is both a law of gravity--things fall--and theories of gravity, most notably those based on fields as in relativity and those based on gravitons as in quantum physics.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I find it mind boggling to contemplate the possiblity of something as complex as the living system, be it animal or plant life, to have evolved from a single cell carbon based life form.  It is like randomly arranging a pile of alphabets and then come up with a literary masterpiece. *



In fact, there is a mathematical theory of evolution that is able to better quantify these probabilities. Current research in complex adaptive systems ("artificial life") lends a great deal of plausibility to the scenario you describe, however--simulation, now considered the third way of doing science (along with theory and experiment), is very compelling in this regard.

Minds have boggled at many things over the years--round earth, constancy of the speed of light for all inertial reference frames, Lobachevskian geomotry--that it boggles the mind is not a good argument against something!

The obvious counterargument, though, is: Doesn't it also boggle your mind that a God, which is surely a form of intelligent life, formed randomly under your theory?


----------



## Nightingale

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *
> 
> Does it fit "ALL" the evidence? *




Yes.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> *"His deviant desires," eh? Would this be the same Jung who wrote as an apologist for Hitler,*



The same.



> * while Freud recognized a group psychosis when he saw one, identified Hitler as what he was, and got the hell out? The Freud whose sisters died in camps? The Freud who--if you'd bother to read, say, his "Dora," case and his innumerable self-analyses--was quite well aware of the limits of his own ideas and his own biases?*



Yet, he could not bring himself to admit that the source of his abandonment of his "Seduction Theory" in favor of "Oedipus Theory" was his need to excuse his incestuous relationship with Minna Bernays.



> *There's little point in my arguing about this. Some prefer the Jung who provided so much ammo to Joseph Campbell's maunderings and the superiority of men over women, to say nothing of his influence on that gorgonzola cheese of an intellectual, George Lucas. Some prefer Freud's humanity, analysis, and skepticism. Me? I with Siggy.*



You seem to be under the impression that I somehow consider Jung "ligitimate" while considering Freud fraudulent; allow me to disabuse you of the notion- I consider both men to be frauds.  That doesn't change the fact that Jung exposed Freud's maintenance of the "Oedipus Theory" in order to excuse his incestuous relationship with his sister-in-law during their 1909 trip
to America.  
As you are undoutedly aware, Freud related to Jung his "bread-slicing" dream, which had been disturbing him for some time.  When Jung asked Freud to tell him some of Freud's personal relations, Freud responded "I could tell you more but I cannot risk my authority!"  Freud knew that exposure of his incestuous relationship with Minna Bernays would destroy both his credibility and the credibility of his theories.



> *If you'd like to attack Freud, show some evidence that you've read his work. It's the same problem with my students who want to write essays attacking Darwin: they won't read his works to see what the ideas and arguments are!*



I could, but what would be the point?  As Aristotle pointed out in his _Ethics_: "Men make revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their personal lives."  Freud created revolutionary changes (his "Oedipus Theory") for reasons connected with his personal life (his incestuous relationship with Minna Bernays).


----------



## rmcrobertson

Fair enough, Dennis. At least you've read some of the material. However, you were quite clearly using Jung to attack Freud...and, I might add, all this stuff about, "deviancy," in fact comes out of Freud's life-long, running self-analysis. Fairly lately, it started being repeated by Jeffrey Masson...himself a guy with a big stack of skeletons in his closet, if we're going to get into the private lives. 

I take your point about private neurosis being behind public achievement. Still, it's be pretty easy to say the same sorts of things about a lot of religious types...after all, one of Freud's best ideas was that this, "normalcy," stuff is a tissue of lies for everybody.

And it in no way invalidates the arguments Freud advanced about religion and illusion. 

Once again, we're left with the same point: believers believe, non-believers don't. I'm chiefly arguing not against faith, but against claiming that faith's logical and scientific. And I was asking why it is that believers even need science on their side...

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Oh, I forgot. Yilisifu argued that evolution claims, "cows...{turned into} whales." Please, could somebody show me where this statement appears in any statement of evolutionary theory? It's like that silly bit about "monkeys turning into men," which is often put forward and which is nowhere to be found in the actual science.

It also simply isn't the case that there's no "macro," level evidence for evolution. Beyond the fact that the level of viruses and bacteria and flies and creatures with short lifespans IS the "macro," level, there're little things like the commonality of DNA, and the fossil record...


Again, thanks.


----------



## chufeng

> Oh, I forgot. Yilisifu argued that evolution claims, "cows...{turned into} whales." Please, could somebody show me where this statement appears in any statement of evolutionary theory?



Item #1) See this article:



> From:  http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0921011.htm
> 
> Fossil Ankle Bones Link Whales to Sheep, Pigs, Cows
> From Moby Dick to Shamu, whales have long fascinated humans. Their remarkable status as ocean-dwelling mammals, along with dolphins and porpoises, at once makes them related to us and yet inconceivably different from us.
> Thus their evolution -- the developmental steps required to leave solid ground for a life in the water -- has long fascinated scientists, including Kenneth Rose of the Program for Functional Anatomy and Evolution at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
> In today's Science, Rose provides outside perspective on a report in the same issue that fills an important gap in scientists' understanding of whale evolution. The report by others documents new fossils of very primitive whales that were found in Pakistan.
> The new fossils, says Rose, have well-developed limbs and are the first to have well-enough preserved ankle bones to allow scientists to change their conclusions about which animals are the closest relatives of these 50 million-year-old primitive whales.
> The importance of this finding, and a similar report about even older fossils in the September 20 issue of Nature, is that it unifies the scientific perspective on whale evolution, says Rose.
> "What's most important about these new fossils is that they contain well-preserved ankles, the most important region morphologically for establishing evolutionary relationships as early whales were in the process of becoming aquatic," explains Rose. "Previously, only fragments have been known of these species, and the few ankle bones that some had identified were not widely accepted among scientists because of the condition of the fossils and their lack of direct association with whale skulls."
> There are two main ways scientists determine evolutionary relationships among various species, he explains. Some scientists consider physical characteristics of specimens -- the morphology -- and look for similarities or differences, the presence and relative complexity of various systems, and other measures that help create connections in the evolutionary tree.
> In the last two decades, others have focused on molecular examinations of species, determining the extent to which two species' genetic information share common features, through studying both nuclear DNA and DNA found in tiny cellular structures called mitochondria.
> Until the new fossils were found, morphology and genetics gave different answers to the question of who are whales' closest land-dwelling relatives, thanks in part to the limited information about the primitive whales' ankles, says Rose.
> Morphologic analysis of the fossil ankles, which Rose conducted independently for his perspective article, shows that these primitive whales (referred to scientifically as the cetaceans) are closely related to "even-toed ungulates" such as sheep, pigs, cows, camels, deer and hippos (an evolutionary order known as the artiodactyls).
> "There has been no question about whales' relationship to hoofed mammals, the question was to which group of hoofed mammals," says Rose. "Prior to having the ankle information, morphologically, early whales appeared to be the sister group of mesonychians -- an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores.
> "The new fossils provide compelling evidence that whales are not just related to, but descended from, artiodactyls rather than mesonychians, bringing the morphological evidence into accord with the molecular data."
> While the agreement of morphology with molecular analysis is welcome and affirmative of both methodologies, Rose cautions that there are problems created by the conclusions.
> Among the outstanding conundrums: The close relationship between cetaceans and hippos appears to require the break-up of groups that have been thought for years to be closely related, he says.
> Rose has published in the past on comparative anatomy of both artiodactyls and mesonychians, but his current work focuses on comparative and functional anatomy of fossils and existing animals to help interpret the probable behavior of extinct mammals. He was invited by the editors of Science to write the perspective on the new fossil discoveries. - By Joanna Downer



It took me three minutes to find this article, BTW...

Item #2) Those who believe doNOT need science to prove their point...but those who do not believe will accept nothing less than science as proof...kind of a Catch 22 isn't it?

good day

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## rmcrobertson

The article just quoted says nothing about "cows turning into whales." 

Among other minor problems, cows are a very recent development. Those we see around us are in fact the product of something like six thousand years of selective breeding--carried out by human beings.

What this article says is that whales are related to other animals than  originally thought. This is in fact a good example of science responding to new and better facts...but it in no way invalidates evolutionary theory. it brings an account of a particular species' evolution into better accord with what we know about the general mechanisms of evolution.

The remark I was objecting to boiled down to saying that evolution couldn't be true becaause it was ridiculous to argue that cows had turned into whales. I repeat, evolution don't say that. Evolution says (read Stephen Jay Gould on this stuff, eh?) that apes and men, for example, had common ancestors.

Thanks.


----------



## chufeng

I agree with you...

Apes and man had a common ancestor...
...and, apparently, cows and whales had a common ancestor, too.

Why did one branch of that evolutionary chain choose to return to the water? 

I did not post this article to disprove evolution...

But, this is a RECENT article which disproves previous held "beliefs" (call them theories if you want) about the source of whales...

Yes science is getting better and better...but I don't think science will ever have ALL of the answers...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> *And it in no way invalidates the arguments Freud advanced about religion and illusion.*



Actually, it does.  You see, Freud's analysis of religion in _The Future of an Illusion_ - an illusion created to satisfy an unconscious need for protection again the cruelties of the world around us- is unsubstantiated by psychoanalysis; in all his published works, nowhere does Freud publish a psychoanalysis of the belief in God based on clinical evidence provided by a believing patient.  

Secondly,  as Freud admitted in a letter written in  1927 to his friend Oskar Pfister: "Let us be quite clear on the point that the views expressed in my book (sic) form no part of analytic theory. They are my personal views."

Thirdly, Freud's belief that religion satisfies some need of a protecting father figure, collapses when applied against the immage of God (or Gods) portrayed by different religions around the world at different times.  Freud's analysis of a loving Father-figure is based on a Judeo-Christian interpretaion of God- it bares little resemblance to the Hindu or Buddhist interpretation of diety.

Lastly, if it can be argued that belief in God is a psychological illusion created to satisfy one's unconscious needs, the opposite is also true- that _*disbelief*_ in God is a psychological illusion created to satify unconscious needs!  If belief in God satisfies the need for a loving, protecting father-figure, it also stands to reason that the disbelief in God satifies the desire to destroy an abusive, uncaring Father-figure.  Thus, atheism becomes an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father (God) and replace him with oneself.   When cosiders the abusive nature of the relationship between Freud and his father, and that his views on God and religion were his _*personal*_ views, it throws Freud's arguments about religion and illusion into serious doubt.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *That is why the evolution process can be observed in virus and bacteria. Their life span is short enough, relative to ours,  for the effect to be noticeable.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it fit "ALL" the evidence? *



Yes, in fact, it does.  

Don't make the common mistake of confusing the FACT of evolution with the THEORY of evolution.  Evolution - the change of genetic information in a population over time - is an observed fact.  The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain and model the mechanism by wich evolution occurred.  Gravity is another good example of this.  Gravity exists.  We all know it.  If you throw a rock straight up, you'd better get out from underneath it, else it'll bean you good.  That's the fact of gravity.  It's been observed, and measured.  Then, there's the Theory of Gravity, which attempts to explain how gravity works.  Believe it or not, gravity is only very dimly understood.  The current Theories (not plural) of Gravity are tenuous at best and have more holes than swiss cheese.  By comparison, the theory of evolution is like a finished piece of fine furniture, with just a little bit of dust that needs to be wiped off.

Law vs. Theory in science:  In general, scientists make no difference between laws and theories.  Laypeople will often refer to the Law of Gravity, and to the Laws of Thermodynamics, when in fact there really are no such things in scientific terms.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I find it mind boggling to contemplate the possiblity of something as complex as the living system, be it animal or plant life, to have evolved from a single cell carbon based life form.  It is like randomly arranging a pile of alphabets and then come up with a literary masterpiece. *



I don't find it mind boggling at all.  In fact, I personally consider it to be nothing short of pure common sense.  And, it is nothing like randomly arranging a pile of letters to get a work of literature.  Evolution, as currently understood, is not random, although there most certainly is a random element at the individual level.  Evolution is about changes in POPULATIONS over relatively large periods of time.

Think about it.  You have a bunch of animals in an area.  This is a population.  In this area, there is a prevalence of a particular disease that occasionally plagues the population, killing a large number of it's members before they can reproduce.  The ones that survive where either lucky, or more resistant to the plague.  The survivors reproduce, and the ones that were more resistant grant their resistance to their children.  Over time, the population that shows resistance to the plague will overwhelm the non-resistant population in terms of numbers.  It's that simple.  If it helps members of a population get to the age of reproduction, it will have a good chance of spreading and modifying the population.  Enough changes, and you get a new species.

There is no scientific debate about evolution.  There is plenty of arguing about the details, though, as research into genetics, paleontology, etc. continues uncovering new stuff.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Sure, fine, OK, right. And the desire to prove, again and again, that Freud was wrong--what's that, if you're Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, but killing the evil father again and again and again?

It doesn't help to argue Hindu versions of what Blake called, "Old Nobodaddy aloft," as proof that Freud didn't know what he was talking about. The Jehovah of the Old Testament--as Freud knew perfectly well ("Moses and Monotheism")--was capable of, "a little hanging and drawing and quartering," himself.

The argument here seems to be that science, and modern skepticism, and much of contemporary philosophy, introduces an undecideability into knowledge. Certainly true. So? The alternative, for some of us, is the sort of unquestioning certainty that some--let me repeat, some--religious folks evidence.

Freud opens up all sorts of little black boxes that previously became closed. That seems to be his real crime--but using Freud's ideas about the unconscious to debunk Freud strikes me as a bit circular.

So anyway, tell me: whose ideas about psychology and religion do you prefer?

Thanks. Nice to converse with folks who have read something.


----------



## Cruentus

I just wanted to say a little something about logic and truth.

Whatever one decides to believe is "true," is based on faith. I think that this is with anything; evolution, theories in psychology, science, or religious beliefs. I know I've said this in so many words already, but I'm going to state myself more distinctly. 

I'll use the "world is flat" as an example, again. Most of the civilized world believes that the world is round; but there are still some people, probabily in isolated areas, that do not believe that the world is round. You can put forth as much evidence to these people as you want, but if they don't accept your evidence (or your premise) as reliable, then they won't accept that the world is round. To them, the world will still be flat. 

Am I making sense? ANYTHING that a person accepts as truth is a matter of faith, when it comes right down to it. The more evidance available to point towards a conclusion, the easier it will be to accept the premise, but ample evidence doesn't insure proof; not for many.

Now, how people come to the conclusion to believe that there isn't a God, or that there is a God, can be based on evidence and logical conclusions regarding that evidence. Now there are some people who just "believe in God" or "don't believe in God," and they haven't fully reasoned out for themselves as to why they have their beliefs. Then, there are others like myself and Quizmodus who have spent a fair amounts of time reasoning out beliefs. 

So, I believe in God, and that belief is a matter of faith. Quizmodus chooses to not believe in God, and that is also a matter of faith. I have based my "faith" on logical conclusions from the evidence in which I accept to be true. Quizmodus also has based his "faith" on logical conclusions from evidence in which he accepts to be true.

As a Christian I have a different premise(s) then Quizmodus, who is an athiest. One of us is certianly more wrong then the other, but that doesn't mean that any amount of evidence at this point in time will actually "prove" one or the other. The decision for either is faith based. So, who is correct? Well, I hope I am, of course. But the sad reality is that we are both probably wrong to a certian degree; it just depends on how severe that degree might be.

There is one thing that I KNOW is NOT true, however. That is IT IS NOT FAIR TO ASSUME that I AM NOT logical in my decision to believe in God. An athiest is not necissarily illogical either. We both have decided to accept different evidence and conclusions, is all.

I wanted to state this because I am finding that many non-religious people want to say "Religion is based on faith (or "emotion" or whatever)," as to imply that being religious is "illogical," leaving them to the conclusion that they are "better" (or smarter, or whatever) for not buying such "nonsense." Many try to do this not just to justify their own non-belief, but to elivate themselves over the rest of the "ignorant" religious population. This, however, goes both ways. Many religious people try to use their beliefs as a ruse to elivate themselves above everyone else in a similar matter. In either case, I think that it is wrong to do so.

So, if any of you choose not to believe in God, yet continue to belittle religious beliefs as being "illogical," then you had better take a good look at yourself and your motives. Why do you believe what you do, and why you are so insistant on trying to be better then everyone else; as if your the only "freethinker" and "logical person" while everyone else who doesn't adhere to what you say must be "trapped" or "illogical" or somehow "lesser" then you. And, if your a Christian and you insist on behaving as if your somehow better then other non-believers because you "know the truth" or "have been saved," then take a hard look as to why you feel you need to do that. What are your REAL MOTIVES. I just think that there are too many people who take the "I'm better" stance in both factions; and I hope that someday they get a humility lesson.

So, believe what you want to believe, but don't judge or assume factors about others just because they don't agree. Just remember, every decision has its consequences. To me, the greatest consequence of being a Catholic Christian is that I feel that I live a better life because of it. That is what is important to me. And of course, that is just my humble opinion.

Now for a little Christian lesson for all you little Christians out there (and anyone else who wants to listen): The Devil (Satan) is refered to in scripture as "diaballein" or "ho katagoros" or "To Tradus" meaning "devil," or "accuser," or "slanderor". The Devil according to tradition and scripture was an Angel named "Lucifer," and was born not evil but innocent, but became evil because of his own PRIDE. He was not only the most beautiful Angel created, but he was also very WISE (hence his representation as a serpent, noted in tribal legends of many different cultures to be the wisest of animals). Satan is probably smarter and wiser then any human being on earth. He is probably more "logical" then you, even. He probably has all his beliefs pretty well reasoned out, too. Probably better then any one human being. But, does that make him right? Keep this in mind, whenever your discussing your beliefs. I don't have one specific point in adding this, for there are many different points here on many different levels. This is just something for you all to think about, and find the points for yourself. 

*Arnisador:* For the record, I have no personal conflicts regarding the theory of evolution. I very much liked your link, also.

*Quizmodus:* I hope you didn't take offense in me using you as an example of an "athiest." I only used you because it appears that you have reasoned out your beliefs pretty well. I may not agree, and I may urge you and others to see things from my perspective (as I will try to see things from other perspectives), but they appear well reasoned out. Please, consider my using you as a compliment not an insult.  

It was good talking to all of you today.


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> 
> *Quizmodus:* I hope you didn't take offense in me using you as an example of an "athiest." I only used you because it appears that you have reasoned out your beliefs pretty well. I may not agree, and I may urge you and others to see things from my perspective (as I will try to see things from other perspectives), but they appear well reasoned out. Please, consider my using you as a compliment not an insult.
> 
> It was good talking to all of you today.
> [/B]



Well, I don't really agree with you, but I appreciate the thought behind your explanation.  It certainly isn't a requirement that you agree with my viewpoint.  If I required agreement, the world would be damned boring.  

Just a few small corrections and a point on perspective.  It's 'Qizmoduis', not 'Quizmodus'.  Or just Qiz, or Q, or, even Paul, which is my real name.  Qiz is an old D&D character name that I've carried onto bulletin boards over the years.  Also, it's 'atheist', not 'athiest'.  Atheist means, literally, someone who lacks belief in a deity - i.e. without theism.  Athiest, OTOH, suggest a person who is the most 'Athi':rofl:   I'm pretty sure I'm low in 'Athi', so that doesn't really fit me.

Perspective:  I grew up catholic.  I understand the church and it's teachings intimately, because my family is quite religious and I spent 12 long years in the catholic education system.  It was my attempt to truly validate and understand my faith and religion that led me to finally, after many years, come to realization that both were invalid.  

A final point:  Truth, facts, and reality aren't subjective.  No matter how strongly you believe that gravity doesn't exist, you'll still die if you decide to test that belief by jumping into the Grand Canyon without a parachute.

To me, deities exist in the same class of entities as elves, fairies, poltergeists, and other ancient mythological beliefs.  There is simply no evidence to suggest the existence of these creatures.  For a rather irreverent, fun, but descriptive perspective on how I view religions, read this: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv  (Note: I didn't write this, but I really think it holds an important message regarding the atheist perspective on religions within the humor.)


----------



## qizmoduis

PAUL,

A point about Satan.  Satan, and especially the idea of evil being based on Pride, and that pride is a sin, is a religious device constructed by the religion to keep people in their place in religious and secular society.  Of course pride, in any form, is dangerous, because it could lead a peasant to aspire to a position beyond what was granted to him, and become a potential thorn in the side of the current power-structure.  Another example, is the whole Eve and the Apple story.  This represents man's desire for knowledge which, again, is dangerous to the power structure.  The history of religion throughout the ages is filled with examples of hostility towards education, and literacy.  

Religion is nothing more than a codification of medieval fuedalism.  In our society, it is slowly and painfully losing it's grip, but this isn't the case in many other parts of the world.  It's enforcement mechanisms are the most effective ever evolved: faith, sin, and the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal paradise.


----------



## Cruentus

Hey look, I spelled it correctly this time. Now lets try a..ath...athia...no.....atheist! Whew! 

Really, I can spell. The problem is, I only have internet access at work, so....I am always working when I post. I usually post in a hurry, and I don't take any care to correct gramatical or spelling errors. The way I write it the 1st time is the way it gets posted. I rarely even re-read what I write.

I do not agree with your conjectures about Satan, in that these conjectures were created for the sole purpose of controlling the masses. Although I do agree with you in that certain Government systems have used previously created ideas to control the masses.

On Truth: Truth is subjective, reality is not. I don't have to believe in gravity. You can show me all sorts of evidence proving the existance of gravity, yet if I think through these proofs thoroughly enough, I will be able to refute them in a logical manner. But the reality is if I jump off a building, I'll splat at the same rate as the believer. The point is, what a person thinks is true or logical isn't going to always be correct. Logic won't always coincide with reality, either. And yes, I do realize that this arguement can be used against religion as well as for it. Personally, though, I think there is a bit more imperical evidence supporting gravities existance then there is supporting any metaphysical idea (religious or anti-religious), so I feel that comparing the two is like comparing an apple and an orange (to quote the old cliche'). 

I enjoyed reading "Kissing Hanks @$$", though! :rofl: I seriously laughed out loud!


----------



## qizmoduis

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Hey look, I spelled it correctly this time. Now lets try a..ath...athia...no.....atheist! Whew!
> 
> Really, I can spell. The problem is, I only have internet access at work, so....I am always working when I post. I usually post in a hurry, and I don't take any care to correct gramatical or spelling errors. The way I write it the 1st time is the way it gets posted. I rarely even re-read what I write.
> 
> *



Seriously, I can't tell you how many times I spelled it wrong too.  I was just picking on you.




> *
> I do not agree with your conjectures about Satan, in that these conjectures were created for the sole purpose of controlling the masses. Although I do agree with you in that certain Government systems have used previously created ideas to control the masses.
> 
> *



That's definitely conjecture on my part.  I'm not proposing that these things were CREATED, except for maybe some deliberate instances, but rather that they EVOLVED over many generations of cultural growth and change.  Also, it's important to realize that Government and Religion, until very recently, were not discreet entities.  Each was a tool of the other.



> *
> 
> On Truth: Truth is subjective, reality is not. I don't have to believe in gravity. You can show me all sorts of evidence proving the existance of gravity, yet if I think through these proofs thoroughly enough, I will be able to refute them in a logical manner. But the reality is if I jump off a building, I'll splat at the same rate as the believer. The point is, what a person thinks is true or logical isn't going to always be correct. Logic won't always coincide with reality, either. And yes, I do realize that this arguement can be used against religion as well as for it. Personally, though, I think there is a bit more imperical evidence supporting gravities existance then there is supporting any metaphysical idea (religious or anti-religious), so I feel that comparing the two is like comparing an apple and an orange (to quote the old cliche').
> 
> *



Well, I don't really subscribe to the idea that truth, the noun, is somehow a separate idea than reality.  Truth, and reality, are not beholden to anyone's beliefs.  Logic also doesn't necessarily agree with reality, but only when it's premises are incorrect.  As I said before, your arguments can be completely valid, but still be incorrect, if they're based on unsupported premises.

But that's neither here nor there.  What's really important is:



> *
> 
> 
> I enjoyed reading "Kissing Hanks @$$", though! :rofl: I seriously laughed out loud!
> 
> *



It's hilarious.  I saw it years ago, and I still get a chuckle or two out of it occasionally.  But it really does illustrate the way I see religions and mysticism in general.  Not usually with such hilarity, though.

Don't forget to click through to the list of "Hankisms" at the bottom.  The author singles out and offends as many religions as possible, including the various flavors of atheism and non-theistic belief systems.

BTW, I chose Qizmoduis, back in my D&D geek days, to deliberately trick people into misspelling or mispronouncing it.  I suppose I was easily entertained back then. :shrug:  

Hey, here's a fun question for you:  Can a belief be chosen?


----------



## Cruentus

I used to love that when I was a kid, around middle school. I haven't had the time to play ever since.

"Can a belief be choosen?"

Yea, I think so. I am a firm believer of free will, so I think people have the freedom of choice to believe and (really) do whatever they are capable of. I think that this "free will" can be a double edged sword, though, given all the poor decisions that we have all been guilty of from time to time.

Oh well, what-r-u-gonna-do?

:idunno: 

Hankisms....:lol: 

:ultracool


----------



## Master of Blades

"Religeon is irrational and therefore not subject to logic" 


Anyone agree/disagree with this comment? Cant remember who told it to me :asian:


----------



## yilisifu

It has been stated by numerous atheists.  And it is dead wrong.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *It has been stated by numerous atheists.  And it is dead wrong. *



Care to give me a reason for that statement?


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *It has been stated by numerous atheists.  And it is dead wrong. *



I associate it more with religious individuals, though not in quite as strong a form as was given here--saying that one can't approach religion through reason (the intellect) but rather must approach it through faith.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *I associate it more with religious individuals, though not in quite as strong a form as was given here--saying that one can't approach religion through reason (the intellect) but rather must approach it through faith. *



My apoligys if I came across too strong......I just wanted to see who agrees or disagrees :asian:


----------



## arnisador

I meant strong only in the sense that saying it's not _subject_ to logic is a stronger claim than it's best not to _approach_ it through reason--you've made a more far-reaching claim than you might have.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *I meant strong only in the sense that saying it's not subject to logic is a stronger claim than it's best not to approach it through reason--you've made a more far-reaching claim than you might have. *



Ah, I'm just saying as I heard it. I take my apoligy back then


----------



## yilisifu

I think it's as much subject to logic as many other areas of study.  To be religious, one can still approach the subject using the concepts of logic and reason and come away with a strong belief.

Many atheists maintain that faith requires that one remove one's brain and forget about logic and reason.  They are absolutely wrong.  This has been the subject of numerous lectures by world-famous philosophers......


----------



## Yari

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *
> So, I believe in God, and that belief is a matter of faith. Quizmodus chooses to not believe in God, and that is also a matter of faith. I have based my "faith" on logical conclusions from the evidence in which I accept to be true. Quizmodus also has based his "faith" on logical conclusions from evidence in which he accepts to be true.
> 
> *



I agree, and your part of the thread is realy good read. Whish more people would read that.

I'm a firm believer that all "faiths" base themselfs on some assumptions of what is correct; "god is good".

But even if I used logic, I mustent forget that logic is only a way of showing the way things "fit" together. And even if the words can make them fit, doesn't mean it's more correct. Logic is a tool for understanding, not a result to show what is correct.

I loved the postulate about satan.  

What if satan turned "good", how would you differ that from God?

/Yari


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

Who resurrected the dead?  I thought this thread was dead a month ago.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Who resurrected the dead?  I thought this thread was dead a month ago. *



I think that on the "MartialTalk awards" thread started by M.O.B., many people had said that this thread was the best discussion so far. I think that people are just taking a second, or possibly a first, look at this thread because of this.

Not a necisarily bad thing.


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Who resurrected the dead?  I thought this thread was dead a month ago. *




Since when does a thread "die"? People come up with something new everyday, I happened to have heard that little saying and wondered what you guys though bout it. I could have started a new thread but though why bother when I can just add to this. Ignore this thread if you want to now, nobodys loss but yours :asian:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

feisty little devil there...


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *feisty little devil there... *



Thankyou, I do try


----------



## Jill666

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *feisty little devil there... *



Yup- he put it well. I too thought the thread was long dead, but faith is such a huge part of many people's live and personal strength I guess, that this thread could be ressurected   ad infinitum.

As for religion and logic, it seems religion is a way to logicise (not a word but you know what I mean?) faith and personal beliefs into a construct people can wrap their heads around.

It doesn't play a part in my consciousness, but certainly does in my life- my hubby is a newly devout Catholic (a weird time to jump in, but I think the need has been growing since 9/11). And although I don't believe in god or hell or heaven per se, I sometimes think there's a certain fatalistic viewpoint I get. (Something was meant to happen, karma kizmet, etc). I don't really like seeing a rosary and bible suddenly on my coffee table- somehow I find it jarring. 

That's all for now, I guess I'm finished blurting.


----------



## rachel

my beliefs are a little odd. I was raised catholic by a protestant mom and a catholic dad. made communion and was confirmed. The whole 9 yards. In high school,my boyfriend was reading sufi books and I started reading them also. i believe in God but I lean towards buddhist books and teachings. I kind of stumbled into it on my own. i was at the library and saw a book called 'how to create a spiritual life from scratch" by Lama surya Das. I loved it. I started reading more of his books. Then books by Thict Naht Hahn.they made sense to me. So I believe in God but the religion I follow is unclear even to me at this point if that makes any sense.


----------



## yilisifu

It all has to do with truth and the search for it.  You have to really WANT to find the truth and you have to understand that truth is absolute and cannot be customized to fit anyone's personal tastes.  What you discover may or may not be comfortable for you as you are at this time.

Understanding that, then, you begin your search.

The first thing to do is...ask.


----------



## chufeng

If you want to see logic applied to religion, pick up something written by Thomas Aquinas...he was very skeptical, very logical, and argued for the existence of God after applying logic to his search for Truth.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Jill666 _
> *Yup- he put it well. I too thought the thread was long dead, but faith is such a huge part of many people's live and personal strength I guess, that this thread could be ressurected   and infinitum.
> 
> *



Thankyou, I take after my dads way of argueing, if your gonna be rude, do it the politest way possible 

:asian:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Jill666 _
> *Yup- he put it well. I too thought the thread was long dead, but faith is such a huge part of many people's live and personal strength I guess, that this thread could be ressurected   ad infinitum.
> 
> As for religion and logic, it seems religion is a way to logicise (not a word but you know what I mean?) faith and personal beliefs into a construct people can wrap their heads around.
> 
> It doesn't play a part in my consciousness, but certainly does in my life- my hubby is a newly devout Catholic (a weird time to jump in, but I think the need has been growing since 9/11). And although I don't believe in god or hell or heaven per se, I sometimes think there's a certain fatalistic viewpoint I get. (Something was meant to happen, karma kizmet, etc). I don't really like seeing a rosary and bible suddenly on my coffee table- somehow I find it jarring.
> 
> That's all for now, I guess I'm finished blurting. *



I sure hope the hubby is not over-worried about the wify being on a fast track to hell....      J/K   You are NOT going to hell for not believing.  If GOD is ever loving and ever forgiving (as advertised for over 2000 years!!! must be some truth in it, huh? lol), then GOD would not be so petty as to condemn those who are "yet to return to accept His grace"


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I sure hope the hubby is not over-worried about the wify being on a fast track to hell....      J/K   You are NOT going to hell for not believing.  If GOD is ever loving and ever forgiving (as advertised for over 2000 years!!! must be some truth in it, huh? lol), then GOD would not be so petty as to condemn those who are "yet to return to accept His grace"   *



Really?  And I was about to come religeous......:shrug:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

If you are interested in exploring why you need faith, I would suggest a book, "I am with you Always" by Chip Ingram (Subtitle: Experiencing God in Times of Need).  No BS. No long winded preaching, nor threat nor fear mongering. No bogus promise of Heavan and the afterlife etc.  Pretty straight forward exploration of the Psalms and everyday life's ups and downs.


----------



## Jill666

I'm not interested, actually, I just don't feel the need. However, I do appreciate your posts.

As for the hubby, so far he hasn't overstepped what I percieve to be his bounds.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Jill666 _
> *I'm not interested, actually, I just don't feel the need. However, I do appreciate your posts.
> 
> As for the hubby, so far he hasn't overstepped what I percieve to be his bounds. *



That's cool, and good to know. Whats funny is that because I Private Messaged you, nobody know what the we're talking about! :rofl: Ha, ha, I feel special (lol).

Seriously, just remember that I'll always try to make myself available.

Same goes for everyone else.....If anyone has any honest inquires on Catholicism, PM me, and I'll make an effort to get back with you. I like to help people with honest inquiries when I can!


----------



## Johnathan Napalm

> _Originally posted by Jill666 _
> *I'm not interested, actually, I just don't feel the need. However, I do appreciate your posts.
> 
> As for the hubby, so far he hasn't overstepped what I percieve to be his bounds. *



Hmmmm. Actually my post was mean for MOB.    Eventhough I am sure he was j/k, on the slim chance that his inquisitive mind might want to explore, I figured I might as well throw the name of the book up there.   

I don't preach nor evangelize. Dunno how to. And don't care to neither. The Father gave His children FREE WILL to choose whether to return to Him and accept His love. Who am I to impose on others what the Father has offered for free?     If God wants to convert a person, it will be done His way.  I am certainly no angel that He would care to send into someone's life. LMAO!


----------



## Master of Blades

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Hmmmm. Actually my post was mean for MOB.    Eventhough I am sure he was j/k, on the slim chance that his inquisitive mind might want to explore, I figured I might as well throw the name of the book up there.
> 
> I don't preach nor evangelize. Dunno how to. And don't care to neither. The Father gave His children FREE WILL to choose whether to return to Him and accept His love. Who am I to impose on others what the Father has offered for free?     If God wants to convert a person, it will be done His way.  I am certainly no angel that He would care to send into someone's life. LMAO! *



LOL Thanks for the offer but to be honest I have no interest in religeon at the moment. Perhaps later in life but right now all I'm interested in is Girls, Fighting, Basket ball and passing my GCSE's. Thanks again though :asian:


----------



## Master of Blades

Just so everyone knows I asked for this thread to be moved here so that newer members can read through and understand what all the referance is about :asian: Just for Clarification


----------



## lost_tortoise

Okay, here it is.  Since I am wasting my employer's good money if I am completely non-productive, I was forced to stop reading at page 5.  I promise that I will catch up A.S.A.P. because I am certain that I have some things to say about some of the arguments here.  However, I thought this post could focus on my spiritual journey so as to define my perspective in future arguments.

I was raised by a scientist (father) and an Episcopalian (mother).  My maternal grandfather was an Episcopalian priest and one of my maternal uncles has become a priest as well (in the same denomination).  I had a very difficult childhood (peers, not parents...okay, a little bit parents) about which I will spare details.  Unfortunately, much of that childhood convinced me to turn away from God and turn to that for which I had a natural aptitude-- science.  I attended church each Sunday and my spirit was kept alive, but breathing quite shallow.  I also grew up near a Seneca Indian reservation on which I spent a great deal of time.  My appreciation for nature was strong and absolute, an undercurrent that eventually gave shape to my current beliefs.  After moving around and experiencing death, suffering and pain in relatively excessive amounts, I found Taoism (Daoism).  I was fourteen and studying Issinryu at the time as well as finally fighting back against the bullies that had tormented the sensitive and flaky "smart kid" so mercilessly.  Taoism was a revelation!  Here was a philosophy that spoke to the point, was as ancient as any I had previously studied and meshed quite well with the empirical experiences that I had logged so far.  My journey began there.  High school was a whirlwind of change for me.  I went from studious to drug-addled and violent.  All the while, I was confirmed in the Episcopalian church for the second time, led christian youth groups and had a voratious appetite for anything Taoist.  Eventually, I did some VERY bad things.  For a little over two years, I found something I was very good at that could make me a lot of money and satisfy a VERY dark part of me as well.  This experience changed me profoundly.  By the time I was nineteen I had broken more than once and risen anew.  I was working as a construction laborer and transforming from a "punk rocker" to a "neo-hippie" when I decided to walk into the woods and not come out for a while.  There, amidst initial struggle and eventual balance, I saw God.  The beauty of nature is so overwhelming, I was brought to my knees in tears many times.  There is purity in the wilderness....a love that is undescribable.  That aspect of creation is where all of my spirtual study crystalized!  
Now, there is a defining of terms necessary here.  I use God as a convenient nomenclature for what I believe, not necessarily within the context of any specific religion or belief system.  I use love in the same way, as a term that elicits a somewhat impicit and objective understanding of the concept.  
I am now 32 and my growth is still in its infancy as I know there is much more under heaven than is dreamt of in our philosophy.  However, I believe God is changing my heart and I am on the right path.
Basics:  God exists and is a non-personable force (for lack of a better term) similar to the philosophical notion of Tao.

I have a personal relationship with God that does not require a mediator or go-between to assist (yes, I am referring to Christ although I think Jesus was awsome)

I have read the Tao Te Ching everyday for 18 years and it is my main source of grounding and spiritual guidance

I participate in bible studies with my wife (a born-again Christian...an Episcopalian, imagine that) regularly and harbor no judgement against the teachings of Christ

I _*am*_ still judgemental, violent and angry in nature and narcissistic (not arrogant, narcissistic...there is a BIG difference) but I work and pray (yes, pray) to change that.

I have been sober for over eleven years now and try to correct my other weaknesses on a daily basis.

I have to go to a picnic at my son's school now, so I will stop here...for now.

geoffrey


----------



## arnisador

Sounds like a tough journey that's now turning out well!

It's important to be able to see one's faults and be able to work on them--sounds like you're in a good place now.


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt

Just browsing through these numerous posts, and I noticed that someone mentioned that they study Jedi (religion?). Now that I have gone to look back at the person who posted this, I can't find it!  Maybe Jedi is was a person whom studies Judism? The only Jedi I know of is that of George Lucas. I don't know if the person was only kidding, but I'm confused. Did anyone else read that post?


----------



## Master of Blades

I said its the only one that makes sense to me, but that was because on the 2001/2 census they put Jedi as a religeon......and if enough people voted for it, it would inturn be turned into a real religeon in a few years time. Since then people have put up sites and stuff but I think it was just a big joke :shrug:


----------



## ThuNder_FoOt

So the Jedi is in the process of becoming a real religion then? Very interesting... anyone have any info on it?? Shoot, I'd become a Jedi. lol.


----------



## redfang

People got the idea somewhere that if they wrote in 'Jedi' as their religion on the census form (Out in the UK wasn't it, MOB?) that the government would have to recognize it as an official religion.  This isn't the case.  From what I read, even though a good number of people did this, it doesn't create any sort of official status for jedi as a religion.  There are processes that churches need to go through to be recognized.  The census report just counts, it doesn't legitamize.


----------



## Cruentus

I thought they did this in Canada also.


----------



## redfang

Maybe, and I seem to remember hearing about it in Australia.  From what I read in the papers here though, no amount of respondants claiming 'Jedi' was going to make it any sort of officially recognized religion anywhere. Not that it might not be able to become a recognized religion through other means.  Though it does seem to lack a great deal of development towards being a realigion.  Kind of a half-assed Zen maybe, with a dash of Taoism thrown in for good measure.


----------



## OULobo

Wow how could I have missed this thread. It took me an hour to read it all. I guess I'll start with my $.02 on my beliefs. I think Paul hit the direction I'm heading pretty well. I was born and raised Catholic, and went through all the ritual and schooling (although I went to public school). 

Somewhere along the journey I started to do what most people do and ask why, or more importantly what else is there out there. I tried to get a feel of all the religions out there (by no means am I very well educated, or even informed, in them). I finally came to the decision that most of the religions guide people to be "good" or moral in their roots. 

As usual, people get caught up in the details. I remain a practicing Catholic in word and deed if not in heart. I resist the ideas of certain obligations the Catholic church requires, like tithing, baptism, confession to a preist and "church law" to name a few, but the ideas of charity, kindness, compassion, healing and love are buried between the details in the Catholic and most other religions. I continue in a Catholic church because I have been going and are familiar with the customs, seeing it no better or worse than worshipping at any other religion's church. 

I believe in and talk to God. I think he listens and helps sometimes. I choose to go to church every Sun. to show him I have time in my busy week to dedicate to him, not to mention the peace the mass brings me during a hectic week. 

On the idea of violent fundamentalism of any religion, I think that they are just a small group that is a bad representation of a much larger group of good people.


----------



## Kroy

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> * the ideas of charity, kindness, compassion, healing and love are buried between the details in the Catholic and most other religions.  *



My sentiments exactly


----------



## WillFightForBeer

My religous standing has thus far been one that I feel is not only overcomplicated, but ultimately bothersome. I was born and (am) being raised Jewish. Exported out of Aetheist Russia when I was two to be able to speak and worship freely here in the US, my whole family is fairly religous. I went to the equivalent of Catholic school for Jews, and religion was always a main subject in every discussion and activity that we had the "joy" of partaking in. My older brother, perhaps one of the most intelligent people that I have had the chance to know, rejected the existence of God at an early age. His transendence into Aetheism coincided with my Bar Mitzvah. When I asked him how he could reject God, he answered in a way that most Aetheists will respond if asked the same question. He had taken the path of logic, however I did not understand at the time.

I was fairly happy with my beliefs, never questioning them. The existence of God was never questionable, how could you challenge the being that created you and everything around you? Then, by means that I shall not reveal at this time, I came across a discussion about the existence of God. It was quite interesting, and I studied every aspect and detail of it. It was not the discussion itself that changed my mind, but rather, the fact that here were people willing to reject everything that they had been taught. The mere fact that others were thinking for themselves opened my mind, and I challenged everything that I learned. I finally came to my current religious standing, one that is only common among the minority of people. Although I stuck with Deism for a while, I ultimately ended up with Aetheism.

I refuse to sit here and preach about the benefits of becoming an Aetheist, for there truly are none. There is nothing good about rejecting God, even though I have done so. In the end, although I do not believe in the existence of a Higher Intelligence, I do believe that the moral codes and laws that we derive from religion are the only things that keep the human race from near-certain extinction. 

 After coming to the conclusion that there is an absence of a Higher Intelligence, my mind wandered into more complicated questions. At one point, I wondered about the existence of life after death, and once again, I decided that post-mortem activity does not exist. This belief, although I still hold it today, has caused me more pain and suffering than anything physical could ever inflict. I realized how insignificant life is, and that pleasure and happiness are only temporary solutions to the inevitable: that we will all die and rot in the ground, with no way of being able to recall those moments of pleasure. 

I read Hume, Nietzsche, Locke, Hobbes, everything that I could get my hands on, but none of it helped. Ever since that one change of mindset, I have lived my life subconciously. I sometimes wonder if existence itself is real. These thoughts plague me, and I find them overcoming me whenever I think too much about them. I believe that soon they will either subside, or I will just get used to them, one way or the other I hope that the solution arrives soon.

       My beliefs changed when I was 13. I am now 14.


----------



## OULobo

> _Originally posted by WillFightForBeer _
> *My religous standing has thus far been one that I feel is not only overcomplicated, but ultimately bothersome. I was born and (am) being raised Jewish. Exported out of Aetheist Russia when I was two to be able to speak and worship freely here in the US, my whole family is fairly religous. I went to the equivalent of Catholic school for Jews, and religion was always a main subject in every discussion and activity that we had the "joy" of partaking in. My older brother, perhaps one of the most intelligent people that I have had the chance to know, rejected the existence of God at an early age. His transendence into Aetheism coincided with my Bar Mitzvah. When I asked him how he could reject God, he answered in a way that most Aetheists will respond if asked the same question. He had taken the path of logic, however I did not understand at the time.
> 
> I was fairly happy with my beliefs, never questioning them. The existence of God was never questionable, how could you challenge the being that created you and everything around you? Then, by means that I shall not reveal at this time, I came across a discussion about the existence of God. It was quite interesting, and I studied every aspect and detail of it. It was not the discussion itself that changed my mind, but rather, the fact that here were people willing to reject everything that they had been taught. The mere fact that others were thinking for themselves opened my mind, and I challenged everything that I learned. I finally came to my current religious standing, one that is only common among the minority of people. Although I stuck with Deism for a while, I ultimately ended up with Aetheism.
> 
> I refuse to sit here and preach about the benefits of becoming an Aetheist, for there truly are none. There is nothing good about rejecting God, even though I have done so. In the end, although I do not believe in the existence of a Higher Intelligence, I do believe that the moral codes and laws that we derive from religion are the only things that keep the human race from near-certain extinction.
> 
> After coming to the conclusion that there is an absence of a Higher Intelligence, my mind wandered into more complicated questions. At one point, I wondered about the existence of life after death, and once again, I decided that post-mortem activity does not exist. This belief, although I still hold it today, has caused me more pain and suffering than anything physical could ever inflict. I realized how insignificant life is, and that pleasure and happiness are only temporary solutions to the inevitable: that we will all die and rot in the ground, with no way of being able to recall those moments of pleasure.
> 
> I read Hume, Nietzsche, Locke, Hobbes, everything that I could get my hands on, but none of it helped. Ever since that one change of mindset, I have lived my life subconciously. I sometimes wonder if existence itself is real. These thoughts plague me, and I find them overcoming me whenever I think too much about them. I believe that soon they will either subside, or I will just get used to them, one way or the other I hope that the solution arrives soon.
> 
> My beliefs changed when I was 13. I am now 14. *



Good luck with your journey.


----------



## Shodan

Christian here.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

_I read Hume, Nietzsche, Locke, Hobbes, everything that I could get my hands on, but none of it helped._

Have you read G. K. Chesterton?  C. S. Lewis?  Peter Kreeft?


----------



## ABN

I recommend:

 C.S. Lewis'  "Mere Christianity?"

 G. K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man"

and "Myth, Allegory, and Gospel an Iterpretation of Tolkein, Lewis, Chesterton, and Williamson"

by Fuller, Kilby,Kirk, Montgomery, and Walsh

Good luck on your journey. I can tell you from personal experience that existentialism is a dead end.

"An atheist is someone with no invisible means of support"
-Fulton J. Sheen


----------



## Cruentus

I second that recomendation on Peter Kreeft and C.S. Lewis.


----------



## someguy

Cognito ergo sum(no clue how to spell it)  But anyways I think therefore I am.  So from this base comes other ideas but surely this is true or it is unimportant to do anything because I do not truely exist and my thoughts don't exist.
From there every thing gets weaker I suppose
Thus there needs to be some thing to have created me as there needs to be something before the beginning or else there should be nothing at all.  
That is all I can say is real.  There is me as I know that I think.  There is GOD as I know that I exist so something else must exist.
As for is reality real.  I don't know but I'm here so I may as well live in it.
I also wish you luck with your journey to find what you may someday find.  I doubt this will help anythough.  It's hard for me to convey this sort of thing to others. I can at best use my limited knowledge to point you in a direction that may help.  MAybe some body here will explain it bettre than me.


----------



## WillFightForBeer

By all means, I can read books all day long on the topic, but get nowhere anytime soon. My belief that there is an absence of a God is quite firm, although I would like to think that what we do during our lifetime matters. In the end, my belief as it is now is something simillar to:

        We are born, there is a period of conciousness, and then we die. Everything in between birth and death is temporary, the only thing that lasts forever, in fact, is death. Sure, it's not a happy thought, and sure, I wish it would change, but so far I doubt that it will. Part of me still believes that what we accomplish in life matters, although it is a very small part.


----------



## someguy

If there is no god than there is no punishment for beliving in god.  There is only the blessing of being able to belive. I think it was Epicurus who said that tif there were no God then it would be nessisary for man to make one.  
You should ty reading some of Epicurus(or how ever his name is spelled)  It may give you something.  It may not.
Some how I doubt I will help much but eh maybe.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

_I think it was Epicurus who said that tif there were no God then it would be nessisary for man to make one._

Actually, it was Voltaire.  Had a decidedly dismal outlook on human behavior.


----------



## WillFightForBeer

Why is that? What would possibly make an outlook on human behavior "dismal". Think about it, it would only be dismal in the eye of the beholder, and even then, the matter is only subject to personal opinion if it is decidedly untrue. So are you saying that what he said is not true?


----------



## someguy

Oops quite right.  It was Voltaire.   Grr this will teach me to have a philosophy class at the same time as when I go over the philosophs in the enlightenment.   Oh well epicuris is still an intresting person who brings up many good points.


----------



## drunken mistress

I´m a Pagan and happy to worship anyone and everyone´s gods and goddesses. I am particularly fond of the Greek and Roman ones. I often say I´m a polytheist which freaks people out when I am filling in forms. My son takes after me naturally. When he was six he knelt down spontaneously and prayed to an image of Hercules in  Alicante Museum. He asked for strength and he certainly got it as he really loves the sparring side of karate!


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

_Why is that? What would possibly make an outlook on human behavior "dismal". _ 

Perhaps because his statement indicates that he believed humanity is so incapable of policing itself, it needs a (real of imagined) Supreme Being to threaten it into proper behavior.

_Think about it, it would only be dismal in the eye of the beholder,_

Yes, and those who hold a similar opinion.
_ and even then, the matter is only subject to personal opinion if it is decidedly untrue._

Why?  The validity of a statement is not determined by an individual's opinion of it, and an individual can hold an opinion regardless of the validity of the facts.  The two do not necessarily have to co-incide.

_So are you saying that what he said is not true?_

To the contrary, I find a great deal of truth in it.  That does not change my opinion that it is a rather dismal truth.

I take it that the discussion about the existence of God was Voltaire's. Have you ever read any of the authors I mentioned?


----------



## WillFightForBeer

No, I have not yet had a chance to look into the afformentioned authors. I agree though, in a Godless society, everything would go straight to hell. It is necessary for us to create a God, like we already have.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

WillFightForBeer said:
			
		

> No, I have not yet had a chance to look into the afformentioned authors. I agree though, in a Godless society, everything would go straight to hell. It is necessary for us to create a God, like we already have.



Or, to recognize that God exists, and will hold us accountable for our actions. :uhyeah:


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Dennis: 

".......Or, to recognize that God exists, and will hold us accountable for our actions......." 

Raises an interesting question. Is it a necessary function of God that we be held accountable for what we do? I am of two lines of thought as I ask this. 

1.) Lincoln suggested that the true measure of a mans' character was to observe what that person would do if they could do anything in the World they wanted to--- and wouldn't get caught. That said, need we have a God who serves the purpose of a Cosmic Criminal system? Must we have the threat of punishment or the promise of reward in order to come out of the best part of ourselves. If the answer is "yes" than I wonder if our choices are truely free- or how we might act if we knew that God would have an occasional laspse and let us off for no good reason. If the answer is "no" then how is it that people are so easily seduced by that which is easier, faster and more seductive? 

2.) I am wondering how it is that "God's" assessments, judgements and mandates always seem to approximate those of whoever is dominant in the religious experience at any given time. During the 17th century 10-s of thousands were accused of witchcraft and put to death in the name of God. On the other side of the globe witchcraft and Shamanisn and Animism are used as ways to more closely approximate God. It seems to me that the "will" of God is more often invoked as a way of one segment of the population having greater bragging rights on being "right" than on improving the Human condition. But suppose for a minute that the sole Purpose for a Human Being to be alive would be to come out of the best part of himself as he produces the best growth and change for himself and his community. Were that true, need a person necessarily invoke a Deity to do this? Couldn't a person do what best for himself and his community because its the right thing to do?  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

_1.) Lincoln suggested that the true measure of a mans' character was to observe what that person would do if they could do anything in the World they wanted to--- and wouldn't get caught. That said, need we have a God who serves the purpose of a Cosmic Criminal system? Must we have the threat of punishment or the promise of reward in order to come out of the best part of ourselves. If the answer is "yes" than I wonder if our choices are truely free- or how we might act if we knew that God would have an occasional laspse and let us off for no good reason. If the answer is "no" then how is it that people are so easily seduced by that which is easier, faster and more seductive? _

I fail to see how a "Yes" answer affects free will at all; what God does is ensure that you face the consequences of your actions, not make the decisions for you.  If the answer is "No", then what is point of calling something right or wrong?  If a omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly just God doesn't hold Man accountable, a) who will, and b) by what right do they do so?

_2.) I am wondering how it is that "God's" assessments, judgements and mandates always seem to approximate those of whoever is dominant in the religious experience at any given time._

Well, that presumes that those in the "dominant religious experience at any giventime" are actually relating God's assessments, judgements, and mandates.  Just because someone claims to be speaking in the name of God, doesn't necessarily mean that they do so.  It also doesn't mean that they *don't*.

_During the 17th century 10-s of thousands were accused of witchcraft and put to death in the name of God. On the other side of the globe witchcraft and Shamanisn and Animism are used as ways to more closely approximate God. It seems to me that the "will" of God is more often invoked as a way of one segment of the population having greater bragging rights on being "right" than on improving the Human condition. _

That presumes that the claims of Animism and Shamanism are equally as valid as those of Christianity.  Consider a counter-example: in one part of the world, women are considered property of her husband, and are forced to undergo the bloddy and painfull practice of female circumcision.  On the other, the practice is elevated to the status of a Sacrament, ensuring that men cannot cast their women aside when it suits them.  Using the premise that all religious systems are equally valid, both acts must be morally eqivalent.

_But suppose for a minute that the sole Purpose for a Human Being to be alive would be to come out of the best part of himself as he produces the best growth and change for himself and his community. Were that true, need a person necessarily invoke a Deity to do this? Couldn't a person do what best for himself and his community because its the right thing to do?_

But, absent a omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly just God, how do you *know* that any given act is right or wrong?  For that matter, why would "right" or "wrong" matter?  All actions would be morally equivallent, be they beatifically charitable or violently selfish.


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Dennis: 

"......But, absent a omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly just God, how do you know that any given act is right or wrong? For that matter, why would "right" or "wrong" matter? All actions would be morally equivallent, be they beatifically charitable or violently selfish......" 

To the best of my ability it seems that only Man is capable of dividing everything into Right or Wrong; Good or Bad. To the best of my ability only Man would WANT to divide everything up into Right or Wrong; Good or Bad. Only Man would be so inadequate as to believe only something outside of himself might set things in order. Certainly it is too much to believe that puny Man could create his own Heaven--- or Hell-- simply through his own good offices, right? Imagine if Man had no "sin", God, or judgement to excuse the fact that when push comes to shove people are just too easily seduced from doing the Right thing--- without a club hanging over their head. Is there some particular reason that you need to KNOW that something is "good" or "bad". Do you, yourself have no internal assessment to let you know when you are working in the best interests of yourself and your community? Whatismore, you deny the probability of each and every act, malevolent or benificent, carrying with it an intrinsic value with which we may or may not agree emotionally. In this way, independent of the nature of God, behaviors have a way of balancing to the Middle Way. Thought I may not like a particular consequence of of my actions, or may enjoy an inflated view of myself because of a consequence, in both cases I am inaccurate in my assessment. Either way I don't need a "God" to tell me when I am being hurtful, venal, or selfish. Nor do I need a God to guarentee that I will be punished or rewarded. God is that He is and no amount of self-serving or self-agrandizing behavior will turn Him to toiling for our individual agendas.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Gary Crawford

I absolutly beleive in God,as far as religion goes,I think religion is a good thing for those who need structor in their lives and works well for many.As for me,since all religions have one thing in common,they all believe they are the only ones that are right and all others are wrong,I have no need for religion.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

_To the best of my ability it seems that only Man is capable of dividing everything into Right or Wrong; Good or Bad. To the best of my ability only Man would WANT to divide everything up into Right or Wrong; Good or Bad._

Agreed- it's called morality.

_Man would be so inadequate as to believe only something outside of himself might set things in order. Certainly it is too much to believe that puny Man could create his own Heaven--- or Hell-- simply through his own good offices, right?_

Inadequatte?  I say insightfull.  And we are the authors of our own Hells.

_Imagine if Man had no "sin", God, or judgement to excuse the fact that when push comes to shove people are just too easily seduced from doing the Right thing--- without a club hanging over their head._

Without God, we would not recognize what *is* Right or Wrong.

_Is there some particular reason that you need to KNOW that something is "good" or "bad"._

So that you do that which is "good", and avoid that which is "bad".

_Do you, yourself have no internal assessment to let you know when you are working in the best interests of yourself and your community? _

You mean, do I have such a process of determining right from wrong apart from that which God has defined right and wrong?  No, I don't.  No one does.

_Whatismore, you deny the probability of each and every act, malevolent or benificent, carrying with it an intrinsic value with which we may or may not agree emotionally. _

Emotionally?  What do emotions have to do with the determination of right and wrong?  Right and wrong are determined through _logic_, through inductive and deductive reason.  It feels good to shoot up with heroin- that doesn't make it "right".

_In this way, independent of the nature of God, behaviors have a way of balancing to the Middle Way._

Ok, let's test your theory:
_Thesis_: Murder is wrong.
_Antithesis_: Murder is not wrong.

What, exactly, is your _synthesis_, or "Middle Way", in this situation?

_Either way I don't need a "God" to tell me when I am being hurtful, venal, or selfish._

So you've never been hurtful, venal, or selfish?  

_Nor do I need a God to guarentee that I will be punished or rewarded._

Really?  Then prove it- what punishment has the murderer of Joan Bennet Ramsey suffered?

_God is that He is and no amount of self-serving or self-agrandizing behavior will turn Him to toiling for our individual agendas_

Right- stating that God is the ultimate arbiter of what is Just is making Him "toil(sic) for our individual agendas".  What exactly do you think you do to Him whaen you declare that Right and Wrong are what *you* declare them to be?

_I absolutly beleive in God,as far as religion goes,I think religion is a good thing for those who need structor in their lives and works well for many.As for me,since all religions have one thing in common,they all believe they are the only ones that are right and all others are wrong,I have no need for religion._

Even if all religions declare that they are the only one that are right, and all others are wrong (a gross oversimplification of all religions if ever there was one), it doesn't follow that all are equal.  Just because determining whether their individual claims are true or not takes effort is not an excuse for not taking that effort.


----------



## Gary Crawford

There are two types of people,those who divide people into two groups,and those who don't!


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Dennis: 

You are, perhaps your own best audience, which leaves me wondering why you would elect to discuss matters when it is apparent you have no intention of considering any possibility other than your own. However you have confused a number of points and perhaps you might consider some alternate truths. 

"......Without God, we would not recognize what is Right or Wrong....." 

This is not supported by any evidence I know of. The constructs known to our species as "right" and "wrong" are wholly of our own fabrication and vary considerably depending on culture, time, stress, intellect and so forth. If God plays any role whatsoever it is to allow the existence of this Universe while we play our silly games of "white and black". Furthermore it is of no sense to say that needing to know what is "good" and what is "bad" animates that a person will do what is "good" and avoid what is "bad" as the constructs are under constant revision as well as subject to interpretation from more than one point of human judgement. In this way Hitler is seen as a demi-god by some people and satanic by others. And only you own personal preference disposes you towards one pole or the other. For all you know Stalin may have represented the way God idealizes the Universe to be and Jesus was an unforgivable anomaly.  

"......You mean, do I have such a process of determining right from wrong apart from that which God has defined right and wrong?  No, I don't.  No one does....." 

You may well be right about yourself, though I doubt it. I think, perhaps you have just gotten lazy and foisted the responsibility about making enlightened decisions off on the first Cosmic excuse to come along. Mother Theresa did not need the Catholic Church to know the right thing to do, nor did Gandhi or dozens of others who worked to invoke quality for their species independent of the judgements of people around them. Nor does the focus of productive behaviors need be human as there are countless selfless acts done on the behalf of endangered species around the world. And where is God in all of this. Allowing the Universe to exist so that we can play out all our dramas until we learn to transcend that which we are and more closely approximate Him. 

Finally......

"........  Right and wrong are determined through logic, through inductive and
deductive reason.  It feels good to shoot up with heroin- that doesn't make it "right"......." 

You couldn't be more wrong. "Right" and "wrong" have little or nothing to do with logic, though we humans flatter ourselves that such decisions are so coldly logical. I am sure that it DOES feel good to shoot up with heroin. I would also bet that the addict believes that his self-abusive action is as justified as the flagellant believes his self-abusive behavior is to HIM. Maybe, YOU think the addicts behavior is "wrong" but then, the addict may think that your slavish adherence to an extraordinary ridgid value system is also "bad". It hard to know what your background is but I would hazard a guess that your conclusions have never come close to the Criminal Justice System, Family Court, a bar during happy hour or the American Dating scene. Such environments do things to the concepts of "Right" and "wrong" that would make a Klein Bottle jealous! 

And what is God doing while all this is going on? Allowing the Universe to exist while we entertain ourselves with dramas such as this. 

BTW: Re: Your test of my thesis is flawed. To more correctly state my position you could say: 

Murder is not right. 

Murder is not wrong. 

Murder occurs in this experience and carries with it the natural consequences of its occurance whether I have knowledge of the nature and instance of those consequences or not.  

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

_There are two types of people,those who divide people into two groups,and those who don't!_

And what, praytell, does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

_You are, perhaps your own best audience, which leaves me wondering why you would elect to discuss matters when it is apparent you have no intention of considering any possibility other than your own._

I find your claim rather ironic, since it was *you*, not I, who restarted this thread after nearly a month of innactivity.

Furthermore, your claim that I have "no intention of considering any possibility other than your own." sounds quite a bit like sour grapes.  I have considered your arguments, and found them to be false.

_The constructs known to our species as "right" and "wrong" are wholly of our own fabrication and vary considerably depending on culture, time, stress, intellect and so forth_

Would you care to name one society, present or past, that has declared murder, theft, or false witness to be an aceptable practice amongst its members?  I know several anthroplogist who would be facinated by this radical discovery.

_If God plays any role whatsoever it is to allow the existence of this Universe while we play our silly games of "white and black"._

Interesting; now God, in addition to making judgements, is impotent, sitting around flacid and inactive while the universe spins on.  Not much of a God at all, it seems.

_Furthermore it is of no sense to say that needing to know what is "good" and what is "bad" animates that a person will do what is "good" and avoid what is "bad" as the constructs are under constant revision as well as subject to interpretation from more than one point of human judgement._

So, by your reasoning, if I were to kill you, that would not be "bad" because from someone's viewpoint, that would be "good"?  By that logic, racism, sexism, slavery, and genocide are entirely acceptable behaviors, because someone, somewhere will cosider such things "good".

_You may well be right about yourself, though I doubt it. I think, perhaps you have just gotten lazy and foisted the responsibility about making enlightened decisions off on the first Cosmic excuse to come along._

Ah, yes..an _ad hominem_ attack; how utterly predictible.  Because I attribute God as the source of all that is Just, I am "lazy" and "foisting my resposibility" off onto Him.

_Mother Theresa did not need the Catholic Church to know the right thing to do, nor did Gandhi or dozens of others who worked to invoke quality for their species independent of the judgements of people around them. Nor does the focus of productive behaviors need be human as there are countless selfless acts done on the behalf of endangered species around the world._

But, according to *your* reasoning, how can you claim that their behavior was productive, since that is in itself a subjective judgement?  How can *you*, a subjective judgementalist, declare that what they did was "productive"?

And I must point out that you have miss-represented my position: I never said that the _Catholic Church_ was the source of all that was just; I said God was.  Mother Theresa herself fully creditied God with her sense of justice- not her own faculties.  And whether the others knew it or not, it was God who instilled in them their sense of justice.

_Maybe, YOU think the addicts behavior is "wrong" but then, the addict may think that your slavish adherence to an extraordinary ridgid value system is also "bad"._

And what if he does?  If he believes it, let him prove it.  

_It hard to know what your background is but I would hazard a guess that your conclusions have never come close to the Criminal Justice System, Family Court, a bar during happy hour or the American Dating scene._

Putting aside the fact that I _work_ in law enforcement, I fail to see of what relevence any of those thing have to do with my conclusions.

_Such environments do things to the concepts of "Right" and "wrong" that would make a Klein Bottle jealous!_

Why?  What is it about such environs that have an impact (if any) on the concepts of Right or Wrong?

_And what is God doing while all this is going on?_

Right there, with each and every one of us, celebrating when we do what is right, and mourning when we do wrong.

_Murder occurs in this experience and carries with it the natural consequences of its occurance whether I have knowledge of the nature and instance of those consequences or not._

And what natural consequences did the murderer of Joan Bennet Ramsey suffer?  And how do you know that the murderer suffered those consequences?  What about Josef Stalin?  What consequences did he suffer for the millions he murdered?


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Dennis: 

Apparently you have found time to confer with others and are now prepared to respond, yes? I was curious to note that your responses are not unlike those of other contributors who have proven themselves to actually be thinly disguised advocates for fundamentalist Christian thought rather than legitimate participants in an on-going and open dialogue. 

Suppose we take a look at the evidence. 

1.)	You are not actually reading my contributions since you chose to attribute to me a quote from some previous individual. I have no idea WHAT that has to do with the dialogue at hand, but it is not my citation.
2.)	There is no irony involved in my contributing to this discussion. I would suggest, however, that if this string HAD in fact been quiet for a month, that you may have found making contributions unrewarding without an audience in front of which to posture. 
3.)	You yourself cannot find my arguments to be false as belief in a Deity is an act of Faith and not something that can be proven by Science as we know it today. You may, perhaps indicate your disagreement or inconsistencies with your own value system and little else.
4.)	Naming a society that has declared murder acceptable only serves to support my position that constructs such as right and wrong are essentially subjective. The governments of Japan, South Africa, US, Germany and the USSR all, at one time or another sanctioned the government sanctioned the subjective irradication of various classes of people and affirmed this under law. Furthermore the Eugenics movement of the 1930-s, the Chemical-Biological experimentation of the 1930-s and 1940-s and the current class-driven eliminations in North Korea likewise support the same thing.  
5.)	God is not impotent--- at least not my God. The fact that He sits back and allows us to make our own mistakes and learn from them seems to bother you some. Perhaps you would rather that He simply stepped in and altered natural law in deference to each individuals complaint that Life was just a BIT too tough at that particular moment. You speak of a God of the Infinite but you still interpret Him in terms of your own selfish ends. As the poet said: I believe in the Sun even when it is raining, and I believe in God, even when He is silent.
6.)	You reasoning to the extreme borders on the childish as you are at least old enough to know that all of the categories you mentioned including racism, sexism, slavery AND genocide  have each be supported and propagated as right or correct at one time or another. Maybe YOU dont consider such things good at this time and in this place, but I guarantee that SOMEONE, somewhere may--- and their value is just as valid as yours. 
7.)	Actually, if you are going to use ad hominem as a defense, you may want to recheck the definition. I have no idea if God is the source of all thats Just. I have no idea if all humans are lazy, or foist their responsibility off onto Him. My statement was that apparently you are uncomfortable with making assessments based on your individual values without having to invoke some higher power to authenticate you. 
8.)	I do not know if Mother Theresas behaviors were productive. That was not the focus of my statement. What I indicated was that she did not need organizational validation to move in the direction of doing good as she defined it. Now, perhaps observant Hindus might have seen her actions as evil as they rescued untouchables from the karmic consequences of previous lives. I dont know. This is outside the parameters in which I invoked her actions. Crediting God with anything is as good as not crediting Him with anything. His allowing the existence of something does not mean people will use it, OR that people need necessarily pair God and the existing item for it to be expressed. 
9.)	You seem particularly focused upon YOUR conclusions as though no one elses conclusions have validity. The drug addict, the rapist, the nun, the minister, the thief and the senator all have values and they are ALL valid. I dont think we are talking about right and wrong as much as what you like and dont like. Very different spheres of discussion. 
10.)	Finally, along with your need to be validated by a Deity, apparently you have a strong need for vengeance. What possible difference does it make to you WHAT the killer of the Ramsey girls suffers, or Stalin, or Hitler, or the guy who overcharges for a corn-beef sandwich at your local deli? God does not check His books every day---- but He DOES check them. If you have so much faith in God, how is it that faith does not extend to trusting that He is taking care of things whether or NOT you get a special delivery message from Him itemizing the details. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

_Apparently you have found time to confer with others and are now prepared to respond, yes?_

Another _ad hominem_- I couldn't possibly be doing this all on my own, could I?  No doubt I'm just some poor, knuckle-dragging shmuck that's just parroting what force-fed to him by his dark masters, right?  

_1.) You are not actually reading my contributions since you chose to attribute to me a quote from some previous individual. I have no idea WHAT that has to do with the dialogue at hand, but it is not my citation._

I did not attribute it to you- I merely responded to it in the same posting as my responses to you.  Try to keep up.

_2.) There is no irony involved in my contributing to this discussion. I would suggest, however, that if this string HAD in fact been quiet for a month, that you may have found making contributions unrewarding without an audience in front of which to posture._

The thread *was* quiet for a month, you opened it again with a post *addressed to me*; and because I responded to a post *addressed to me*, I am now accused of "posturing".  Right.  Maybe you'll now accuse me of using my hidden Jedi mind-powers to force you to address your posts to me.  

_3.) You yourself cannot find my arguments to be &#8220;false&#8221; as belief in a Deity is an act of Faith and not something that can be proven by Science as we know it today. You may, perhaps indicate your disagreement or inconsistencies with your own value system and little else._

I never said that I found your arguments false through *Science*; I can show them to be false through _logic_.

_4.) Naming a society that has declared &#8220;murder&#8221; acceptable only serves to support my position that constructs such as &#8220;right&#8221; and &#8220;wrong&#8221; are essentially subjective._

Which is why I asked you to name them.

_The governments of Japan, South Africa, US, Germany and the USSR all, at one time or another sanctioned the government &#8211;sanctioned the subjective irradication of various classes of people and affirmed this under law. Furthermore the Eugenics movement of the 1930-s, the Chemical-Biological experimentation of the 1930-s and 1940-s and the current class-driven eliminations in North Korea likewise support the same thing._

Nice try, but no- I asked: "Would you care to name one society, present or past, that has declared murder, theft, or false witness to be an aceptable practice _amongst its members?_"  What you have cited are class vs. class conflicts, _not_ a society sanctioning murder against _its own members_.  You do not see members of N. Korean Communist Party openly sanctioning mureder amongst its own.

_5.) God is not impotent--- at least not my God._

Your God sits back and does nothing- why shouldn't I call him impotent?

_The fact that He sits back and allows us to make our own mistakes and learn from them seems to bother you some._

The fact that he _does nothing_ bothers me a great deal; if God does not decide what is right or wrong, if all truth is subjective, decided at the whim of the individual, then there is no difference between the Saint and the Monster- all acts are equal.  And all action are _meaningless_.  The Monster is no better than the Saint- and no worse. That way lies madness.

_Perhaps you would rather that He simply stepped in and altered natural law in deference to each individuals complaint that Life was just a BIT too tough at that particular moment._

Why would he need to alter Natural Law?  The dificulty of life isn't His fault- it's _ours_.  We _choose_ to violate Natural Law by declaring "right and wrong are subjective", and as a result, life is hard.

_You speak of a God of the Infinite but you still interpret Him in terms of your own selfish ends_

*My selfish ends?!?*  I speak of a God that holds all accountable for their action- in this life or the next.  Your "god" sits back and does nothing- holds no one accountable for their actions, niether encouraging good, nor discouraging evil.  What exactly are my selfish ends?

_6.) You reasoning to the extreme borders on the childish as you are at least old enough to know that all of the categories you mentioned including &#8220;racism&#8221;, &#8220;sexism&#8221;, &#8220;slavery&#8221; AND &#8220;genocide&#8221; have each be supported and propagated as &#8220;right&#8221; or &#8220;correct&#8221; at one time or another._

And by your reasoning, thet might be so supported and propagated as such again.  But not by mine; by mine, they are wrong- now and forever more.

_7.) Actually, if you are going to use &#8220;ad hominem&#8221; as a defense, you may want to recheck the definition_

An _ad hominem_ (16th Century Latin: "to the person") attack is an attack on the person.  You stated: "_I think, perhaps *you have just gotten lazy and foisted the responsibility* about making enlightened decisions off on the first Cosmic excuse to come along._"  You attacked me, not my argument; hence, _ad hominem_ attack.

_My statement was that apparently you are uncomfortable with making assessments based on your individual values without having to invoke some higher power to authenticate you._

Your statement was a cheap shot, an attack on my person.  You could not attack my argument, so you attacked me.  I called you on it, and now you're trying to backpeddle your way out of it.

_8.) I do not know if Mother Theresas&#8217; behaviors were productive. That was not the focus of my statement._

Then why state it?

_ What I indicated was that she did not need organizational validation to move in the direction of doing &#8220;good&#8221; as she defined it._

But we weren't talking about "organizational validation", we were talking about God instilling a sense of justice.  You're just doing more backpeddling.

_9.) You seem particularly focused upon YOUR conclusions as though no one elses&#8217; conclusions have validity. The drug addict, the rapist, the nun, the minister, the thief and the senator all have values and they are ALL valid. I don&#8217;t think we are talking about &#8220;right&#8221; and &#8220;wrong&#8221; as much as what you &#8220;like&#8221; and &#8220;don&#8217;t like&#8221;. Very different spheres of discussion._

Why are they all equally valid?  If I have cancer, should I consider the opinions of a garbage collector equally valid to those of a oncologist?  Why *should* I consider all conclusions equally valid?

_10.) Finally, along with your need to be validated by a Deity, apparently you have a strong need for vengeance._

Vengence??  Where have I demonstrated such a need?  I willingly admit to a strong idea for _justice_, but that is a far cry different from vengence.

_What possible difference does it make to you WHAT the killer of the Ramsey girls suffers, or Stalin, or Hitler, or the guy who overcharges for a corn-beef sandwich at your local deli?_

Because *you* stated: _Nor do I need a God to guarentee that I will be punished or rewarded_, and _Murder occurs in this experience and carries with it the natural consequences of its occurance whether I have knowledge of the nature and instance of those consequences or not._ *You* are the one who claims that God doesn't act, that _"If God plays any role whatsoever it is to allow the existence of this Universe while we play our silly games of "white and black"._  And asked you to back up your claims: I cited a known murderer, who slew _millions_, and asked you what "natural consequences" he faced in this world, and you have given me nothing.

_God does not check His books every day---- but He DOES check them._

Now you just flat out contradict yourself- God doesn't act, but He does act.  Which is it?  Does He just sit back and let us 'play our silly games of "white and black"', or does He actively intervene?

_If you have so much faith in God, how is it that faith does not extend to trusting that He is taking care of things whether or NOT you get a special delivery message from Him itemizing the details._

*I* do; it was you who claimed that God sat back and did nothing.  I asked *you*, not God, to defend your statments, and you haven't done so.  Sounds more and more like you agree with my opinion, and don't want to admit that you were wrong.


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Dennis: 

How apt. For you this discussion is not about the nature of God but about one person being "right" and of course, then the other person must be wrong. How odd that the "logic" that you tout is so conveniently limited only to the point of defining God as a judge. How convenient for you that as a Judge, that same God must take  to himself the responsibilities that you have as a rational being. Logic? Not when your purblind view of things disallows your ability to view all of the options. It is not logic when only select "a-s" are equal to selected "b-s". I notice also that while you state that I am somehow "back-pedaling" ( a term used in Logic?) you yourself do not forward any mitigating evidence to the contrary, being content to simply identify my statements as "false". Excuse me, Dennis, but if you are actually using Logic, you will know that one can never prove something as "true" or "false"  only Logical or Illogical. It follows that since the belief in a God is not a matter of knowledge but one of Faith, one cannot make a "logical" statement, let alone prove something "false". You seem to like throwing these terms around but apparently you don't have much depth of understanding about their place in discussion. 

As far as your whimsical comments about being a knuckle-dragger, I have no way of knowing this. However, I would suggest that the cynicism in your comments might well reveal the scars left over from similar discussions in the past in which you have similarly been criticized for fervent if uninspired comments. 

Speaking of "keeping up, it may be time for you to be called to account for your somewhat inaccurate reporting. 
a.) My comment regarding your posturing was a function of your methodology not of your response to my post. This is similar to your comment about not finding my comments "false through Science". 
b.) Since we are discussing what is effectively matters of Faith you can use neither Science nor Logic, nor can you find my statements False. 
c.) You can, with some maturity enter into a reasonable exchange of views on the subject, though assessing your past communications my sense is this is quite a bit beyond you without some greater authority such as a religious text or organization to invoke. 
d.) And since you disavow the validity of even historic record, I am not sure there is much basis for further discussion. Had you but reviewed your history you would find that the examples I gave were all consistently cultures which as you say accepted the crimes you identified among its members. What probably embarrasses you is that such sanctions continue even to this day. 
e.) But perhaps what I find most disturbing is that you blatantly misrepresent what I shared for the purpose of "winning" when there has been no competition accept in your own mind. You stated that "my God sits by and does nothing". I would hardly consider maintaining the existence of the entire Universe through an act of pure consciousness "nothing". Your definition of "nothing" appears to be a function of your own narcissitic need to be affirmed. And since God and His Universe cannot be proven to be at your beck and call, such a universe is unthinkable for you. Does God know He's suppose to be keeping you apprised each time a star goes supernova, or a pickpocket gets busted or a pre-adolescent with a flashlight filches one of his uncles' PLAYBOY-s? Does God know that His role is one of dividing existence up into "good" and "bad" so Dennis doesn't feel like his life is a joke? I didn't attack YOU, Dennis. I attacked the ignorance and misrepresentation that you use to maintain limits on your own Humanity. I for one am legitimately sorry that you have selected a life in which keeping your balance is a matter of dividing everything up into Black and White, but lets not spread your infection to the Deity, yes? In less that 100 years you will no longer be here, and will, most probably return to take another whack at solving your conundrums. God will still be here. I am probably going to be back myself. The riddles will be the same. All will be played again and again, until we get it accomplished. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## markulous

I personally think there is a god or 2.  I don't KNOW but I have an idea that there is a good god and also an evil god.  Both doing their thing creating the balance.  Sometimes it teeters off one way but it eventually corrects itself.

As far as right or wrong goes...If we just see and observe what's going on within ourselves we would do the right thing.  But again I used the word "right".  So there isn't really a right or wrong, because that would mean being classified by someone or something.  There is just truth.  To me "right" is helping yourself and others around you and not stealing, lying, murdering, and all that other stuff without truthful reasoning.  To another it would be crashing into a tower in an airplane and murdering people.  Obviously those people that did that, SAW differently than me and most other people.  Because of that fact does that make them wrong?  Who knows.  That doesn't mean I just sit there when something goes bad.  Say I saw a guy in a ski mask mug a woman and take her purse, I am not going to say "Well that might not be wrong because he see's it as right." And debate it all in my head while he runs by me.  I am going to beat the crap out of him if it is within my power and help the woman.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm only human.


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Markulous: 

The very first thing I thought of when I read your post was the movement in the post WW II Jewish population that advocated that God had broken His covenant with the Jewish people. But it sounds like what you are proposing is more along the lines of there being two Gods after the fashion of Um and Yang, yes? For myself I had often found problems with some of the Christian approach as "the devil" often seemed represented as a counterpoint to God. And then there is the idea that were God empowered to intervene in a given event, would He? Then there is the matter of the Universe Recycling. If this particular incarnation of the Universe started about 8 billion years ago, and may well have about the same to go, what happens after that? And how many times has this happened? If a cycle for the Universe as we know it is some 20 billion years, how many times would our Universe have recycled in, say, 300 billion years? And what is the ethereal nature of such a recycling? Are souls given a reshuffle and redistributed throughout the Universe? Does God grant an amnesty, erase the chalk board and begin again? Or does the Universe simply recycle naturally in much the same way as a clock pendulum swings first one way and then another? FWIW? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## markulous

Bruce,

Yeah after being in martial arts and reading about taoism and buddhism(I still don't know that much I am still reading everyday) everywhere I see BALANCE.  So yeah I fashion my "idea" after the yin and the yang.

That's an interesting thought about the universe recycling.  The happy ending part of me wants there to be a heaven but that is just wishful thinking.  If bad people went to a hell and good people went to a heaven I would see balance there.  Or the way you said it also would have balance.  We will find out sooner or later.  Hopefully later than sooner.   :asian:


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

_How apt. For you this discussion is not about the nature of God but about one person being "right" and of course, then the other person must be wrong._

It was *you*, not I, that asked: "Is it a necessary function of God that we be held accountable for what we do?"  Either He is, or He isn't.  I take the position that He does, you take the position that he doesn't.  One of us is right, the other is wrong.

_How convenient for you that as a Judge, that same God must take to himself the responsibilities that you have as a rational being._

Not convienient for me at all; if God doesn't hold me responsible for my actions, and truth is subjective (again, *your* position, not mine), then any action I take is meaningless, of equal value.  It doesn't matter what rational decisions led to that action-it's still subjective, still valueless.  Rape is no better nor worse than charity, murder no better than saving a life.

_Not when your purblind view of things disallows your ability to view all of the options_

I have considered your option- and rejected it.  Your position suggests that God created the world, populated it, and then sat back and allowed it turn into a slum.

_I notice also that while you state that I am somehow "back-pedaling" ( a term used in Logic?) you yourself do not forward any mitigating evidence to the contrary, being content to simply identify my statements as "false"._

1) You attacked me.
2) I pointed it out.
3) You attempted to claim that it wasn't an attack.  That's back-pedaling.

_Excuse me, Dennis, but if you are actually using Logic, you will know that one can never prove something as "true" or "false" only Logical or Illogical_

And this is written where?  Certainly not in Socrates's _Apologia_.  Certainly not in Plato's _Republic_.  Not in Aristotle's _Ethics_.  Not in Boethius's _The Consolodation of Philosophy_.

_It follows that since the belief in a God is not a matter of knowledge but one of Faith, one cannot make a "logical" statement, let alone prove something "false"._

Have you never heard of the _First Cause Argument_?

You know what, I'm washing my hands of you.  You've resorted to insult, back-pedaled when called on it, and flat-out contradicted yourself.  Go believe what you want, but don't expect me to respect you.


----------



## KenpoTess

appropo methinks


----------



## WillFightForBeer

Forget this arguement, it only caused un-needed mental stress. You cannot prove a negative, therefore there is no definite answer. 

Who cares, anyways.....

Don't question the chair, just sit in it


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Dennis: 

"......I have considered your option- and rejected it. Your position suggests that God created the world, populated it, and then sat back and allowed it turn into a slum....." 

Sorry your world is a slum; Mine isn't. God allows for the existence of the universe that we know, He allows people to make the choices that they do. He allows the natural consequences of those behaviors to be visited on the actors. He does this all on His scale and that may or may not be satisfying to us. 

"......1) You attacked me.
2) I pointed it out.
3) You attempted to claim that it wasn't an attack. That's back-pedaling...." 

Identifying what is not an attack as "not being an attack" was a correction to you. Your need to be right does not allow you to accept correction. 

"......Have you never heard of the First Cause Argument?...." 

Yes, and it does not apply within the context of what we are discussng. 

".......You know what, I'm washing my hands of you. You've resorted to insult, back-pedaled when called on it, and flat-out contradicted yourself. Go believe what you want, but don't expect me to respect you....." 

Ironic that you invoke the same sort of symbolism attributed to Pontius Pilate and which was apparently just as flawed. I have no doubt that the discussion would have gone longer had I simply agreed that you were right. God is a cosmic judge whose sole purpose is to reward good people and punish bad people. And how do we know when we are good (enough?) or bad (enough?)--- why there are special people who have set themselves up as authorities on what God is suppose to be doing. I am sure this brings some smug sense of satisfaction to you. On the other hand I come from a State whose last governor excused 11 people from Death Row. Despite getting the "benefit" of judgement, without intervention they would have been 11 innocents executed for what they had not done. I am left to wonder how many others died before notice was taken of the situation. That said, I would not be too quick to wave the flag of justice as a rationale for your belief system. There is more of revenge than compassion in this. And whatever else people disagree on, most concur that whatever else God maybe--- He is a god of Compassion. 

Oh, and "respect"?  Well, if your concept of respect is something that you parcel out only to people who adjust their beliefs in deference to your own, it can't really be worth much, yes? FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Fight: 

I am not sure that anyone was looking for a definite answer. And, as far as "who cares?", well, I do. For a Buddhist, such caring is "benevolent indifference"---- to acknowledge truths without being controlled by them. Whatismore, one practices to remain in the here-and-now and consistently address who one truely is and how this relates to whatever truths are presented. This is called "one-mindedness" or "single mindedness". Take the matter of God. 

God is a truth. How do I relate to Him and how does the nature of my True Self figure into that relationship? I can use books, and religions, and groups and whatever else, as crutches but I am still led to a place where I must know God and my relationship to Him. Not easy stuff, this, and maybe thats why God grants us a lifetime--- perhaps even many lifetimes to work it out. FWIW.

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## marshallbd

yilisifu said:
			
		

> So I am a Christian and I'll be the first in line to stand up and say it.


I'm right there with you Brothers (or Sisters)! :asian:


----------



## someguy

Consider the implicatoins of there not being a God.  
Existance is just some random fluke in existance.
You live just to not.
All you do is worth nothing to you in the end.
The only thing that is good is what you chose to make it.
I can't exept those implications so I must belive in God.  Some people maybe albe to do so but I just can't.
As to what willfight4beer you can rarely prove a negative but thats just nitpicking unless you go down the line of is anything real and I don't like where tht takes me either so if I'm deciving my self so be it.
There is a mad tv sketch that said heaven and prayer are just a crutch to keep people from despair.  I dislike dispare so I prefere to avoid it.
btw to athiests out there no offense intended I don't mean to attack your views or anything


----------



## OUMoose

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Fight:
> 
> I am not sure that anyone was looking for a definite answer. And, as far as "who cares?", well, I do. For a Buddhist, such caring is "benevolent indifference"---- to acknowledge truths without being controlled by them. Whatismore, one practices to remain in the here-and-now and consistently address who one truely is and how this relates to whatever truths are presented. This is called "one-mindedness" or "single mindedness". Take the matter of God.
> 
> God is a truth. How do I relate to Him and how does the nature of my True Self figure into that relationship? I can use books, and religions, and groups and whatever else, as crutches but I am still led to a place where I must know God and my relationship to Him. Not easy stuff, this, and maybe thats why God grants us a lifetime--- perhaps even many lifetimes to work it out. FWIW.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Bruce



Bruce, I am not argueing your point, but there is one little part of your post that got under my skin. 

Dictionary.com defines truth as:  "A statement proven to be or accepted as true."  Since I have never seen any documented evidence of the existance of God, he/she/it can not be a truth under that definition.  Granted, this is just one of many interpretations (much like most of the religious texts), but this thread is for speculation, is it not?  But speculation implies discussion of an unproven theory, not fact.  Dissertation and cross-examination discuss facts, IMO.  

Just playing devil's advocate here (pardon the pun).  My personal philosophy is an eclectic one.  I don't necessarily feel the need to personify whatever higher power exists, be it God, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Cerruenos, the Goddess, Satan, Set, Osiris, or any others that I can't think of off the top of my head.  I realize that there are things in this world that can't be explained away by science, and that we are just a small part of a much bigger picture.  As for right and wrong, I think some of the occultists got it close to right in "An it hurt none, do as ye will".  To illustrate:  a Suicide bomber blows himself up in the middle of a city square with people around to prove a point, or his faith if you will.  No one else is injured in the blast.  My take?   :idunno: Great.  He/she did what they thought was right without hurting anyone.  911 (as everyone so loves to bring up.. /sigh)?  bad, because they took alot of innocent people with them.

Anyways, I'm ranting now, and I'm gonna stop.  Please continue.

EDIT:  I would just like to say I would offer a dollar to whoever pimpslaps the person that came up with UBBcode... that stuff is just annoying!


----------



## marshallbd

OUMoose said:
			
		

> EDIT:  I would just like to say I would offer a dollar to whoever pimpslaps the person that came up with UBBcode... that stuff is just annoying!


What is the UBBCode?


----------



## OUMoose

that code junk you have to put in to make links, bold text, etc...

just use HTML.. alot easier!

(sorry for the thread hijacking, but thought it fair to respond)


----------



## marshallbd

OUMoose said:
			
		

> that code junk you have to put in to make links, bold text, etc...
> 
> just use HTML.. alot easier!
> 
> (sorry for the thread hijacking, but thought it fair to respond)


Thanks very much.... :asian:


----------



## Brother John

TLH3rdDan said:
			
		

> well if there is a hell i wont be alone and it will be the biggest party of all times... im sure heaven would be pretty boring without ozzy, ac/dc, the stones, and countless other bands...


Please realize that you are treading on the religious convictions of others TLH3rdDan.

Not cool...



Your Brother
John


----------



## OUMoose

Brother John said:
			
		

> Please realize that you are treading on the religious convictions of others TLH3rdDan.
> 
> Not cool...
> 
> Your Brother
> John



How is that treading on other's religious convictions?  He was clearly referring to himself, and others who make no case against their presumed location after passing.


----------



## marshallbd

OUMoose said:
			
		

> How is that treading on other's religious convictions?  He was clearly referring to himself, and others who make no case against their presumed location after passing.


I would agree with that, besides, he does hae the right to say whatever he feels concerning religion, whether or not we agree with it.....as long is it is respectful....


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

I consider myself a deeply spiritual man, but not religious. I see the influence of the Unseen Mover everywhere, and the more I study science, biology, chemistry, physiology, etc., the more convinced I become that there is not possible way this is an accident.

I consider the specififs of my spiritual practices to be private: I think there's even something in the gospel about praying in your closet, instead of in the streets where people can hear you.  So, when asked, I respond with one of the following:

1.  I'm a Frisbeetarian: The belief that, when you die, your soul flies onto the garage roof and gets stuck up there.

2.  Neo-Pagan Shamanic Mysticism. Just because it's fun to watch peoples eyes cross as they try to unpackage it when you say it really fast.

I will say this: I don't believe any established world religion has the big picture nailed down. Kinda that 'several blind men describing the elephant' thing, or the Allegory of the Cave. I think finding the truth is an individual journey, and can only be hard won by those who seek dilligently and consistently, with an open mind and no projections as to what the truth _should_ look like. This pretty much rules out most established paths; standardized approaches to some other individuals reported experience of the truth. Reaching a place of perception without projection is a lifetime effort that I'm not sure many have ever achieved; I know I have not. So I'll keep sourcing.


----------



## OUMoose

> 1. I'm a Frisbeetarian: The belief that, when you die, your soul flies onto the garage roof and gets stuck up there.



*chuckle*  I have to remember that one.


----------



## Flatlander

My beliefs are a subtle mix of taoism, buddhism, and quantum physics.

What really strikes me is the tendency for matter to be discontinuous.  A particle pops in and out of existence.  Also, I find it peculiar that a particle can become energy, and a photon can become a particle.  Its difficult for me to accept any sort of realist theory that has conciousness existing in the universe.  I think its the other way around.  The universe exists in conciousness.  Though I'm still trying to reconcile these things with the rest of my beliefs, and spend alot of time sitting around, looking confused!


----------



## Corporal Hicks

God is just the explaination for somethings we do not understand and therefore we created something more mighty than we could understand and got ourselves unstuck! 

Prove God?

Then you say, Prove God doesnt exist though!

in which I reply:

I can say that about anything, I have a purple giraffe, only I can see it, touch it or smell it and you cant see it, therefore it exists!!!!, well in the God theory it does anyway If I use your theories!

See my point!

NO Disrespect people, in my opinion, you are a stronger person if you believe in something and stand by it through criticsm than a person who doesnt believe in anything!
Regards

P.S I used to be a Christain until I grew older and felt I was being brainwashed by Church and the bible. I chose my own path, nothing chooses it for me, apart maybe from my nature and some extra stimuli!


----------



## Sailor

I believe in a supreme being but it is probably a rather eclectic view. I feel that the term "God" is more a title then a name of an individual deity. We don't have the words to be able to define such a being, so why try.

As for as where we go or what happens when we die I can only guess. But that's what makes it such a grand adventure.


----------



## Corporal Hicks

[ We don't have the words to be able to define such a being, so why try.

Well, we created that being, Humans created that being. And just because you cannot define it, doesnt bring it into existance!

Regards


----------



## OULobo

I was just discussing this subject yesterday with a friend. He brought up a good point. Have any of you guys seen the movie Contact? In it the main character (Jodie Foster) is a scientist that is very anti-religion. She feels that if you can prove it, then it doesn't exist. Her opposite is a wandering holy man, who tries to explain God's presence in this way; He asks if she loves her father and she replies yes. He then says prove it. Somethings may exist, but they can't be proven until later. That doesn't mean we can deny their presence.


----------



## LateBloomer

OULobo said:
			
		

> I was just discussing this subject yesterday with a friend. He brought up a good point. Have any of you guys seen the movie Contact? In it the main character (Jodie Foster) is a scientist that is very anti-religion. She feels that if you _can't_ prove it, then it doesn't exist. Her opposite is a wandering holy man, who tries to explain God's presence in this way; He asks if she loves her father and she replies yes. He then says prove it. Somethings may exist, but they can't be proven until later. That doesn't mean we can deny their presence.


Oh yes, me, me.  I read the book Contact first before I saw the movie (Jodie Foster).  I liked the ending in the movie much better than the book because the movie actually sums up the very important conclusion her character finally came to through the ordeal of the congressional hearing...that somethings we just have to take on FAITH (because she had no physical proof).  Amen.

I don't remember the part about the holy man but the explanation makes sense to me.  I can claim that my father loves me by giving examples from my experience.  It does come down to personal experience.


----------



## OUMoose

LateBloomer said:
			
		

> that somethings we just have to take on FAITH (because she had no physical proof).


...  lets not forget the end of the movie though.  The 18-hours of static recorded was not "proof"?  It may not prove that she saw little green men, but it does prove that something outside of what was witnessed did in fact happen.

I know, it's nitpicking, but it is relevant IMO.


----------

