steve319
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 183
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Another thing about Popes
- Thread starter GottaBigOne
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
The hats are pretty cool.
The point of debate isn't always to win, but to put forth an argument. I do not ever argue religious issues thinking I'm going to win converts, that is never my intention. Most people aren't that opened minded. Healthy debate is good for the mind, and good for society, it isn't always about making people agree with you, I value when people pose counter arguments, it helps me to think about my positions and grow stronger in my understanding of the issue.
As for the non-existence of God being obvious to me, here's why:
Arguments against God
The point of debate isn't always to win, but to put forth an argument. I do not ever argue religious issues thinking I'm going to win converts, that is never my intention. Most people aren't that opened minded. Healthy debate is good for the mind, and good for society, it isn't always about making people agree with you, I value when people pose counter arguments, it helps me to think about my positions and grow stronger in my understanding of the issue.
As for the non-existence of God being obvious to me, here's why:
Arguments against God
carolinacurious:
Those aren't really arguments against the existence of God, they are arguments against the arguments FOR the existence of God or in some cases arguments on the nature of or definition of God.
They don't really prove anything, except that many (ALL of the ones that don't rely on faith) of the classic arguments FOR God are fatally flawed. Likewise, to be "positive" that there is no God requires faith as well.
You will never be able to prove that there is no God in the same sense that you will never be able to prove that there isn't an invisible undetectable pink elephant reading over your shoulder right now.
Still, interesting reading, and if I never again have to explain why the "argument from design" isn't valid it will be fine with me.
( http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/design.htm )
Those aren't really arguments against the existence of God, they are arguments against the arguments FOR the existence of God or in some cases arguments on the nature of or definition of God.
They don't really prove anything, except that many (ALL of the ones that don't rely on faith) of the classic arguments FOR God are fatally flawed. Likewise, to be "positive" that there is no God requires faith as well.
You will never be able to prove that there is no God in the same sense that you will never be able to prove that there isn't an invisible undetectable pink elephant reading over your shoulder right now.
Still, interesting reading, and if I never again have to explain why the "argument from design" isn't valid it will be fine with me.
( http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/design.htm )
madame_zora
Sexy Member
That's interesting reading, but anoying in the same way I find so many "logic thinkers" words annoying. He makes too many assumptions and premises for which he offers no proof and then comes to conclusions based on his own premises. That's like saying "I'm right because I just said I am right, trust me". Annoying.
I neither agree nor disagree with him, I just don't like his style. I do agree that the inconsistancies of the God described in the Bible make it hard to get any concept of what he's all about, but I'll have to save that argument for a time when I can use quotes and references lest I commit to type things about which I am unsure.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Nither I nor Austin Cline claim that the aformentioned arguments are arguments against the existence of all possible gods. They are arguments against the God that is described in the bible, and by many theologians and believers. Like he says, something that is a contradiction can not exist just like square circles can not exist. He then goes to show that the attributes given to "God" (capital "G") are contradictory. I think that's what you mean by assumptions Madam. He is not saying that those attributes are the actual attributes of the "real" God, or all gods, rather he is saying that that god, which has those attributes can not exist. It is impossible to prove that there are no gods, that is not what he or I believe.
I DOUBT that there are any gods but I can never know, precisely because the basic definitions of gods include the inability to know them. Its like saying "Prove to me that invisible elves whose true nature can never be known don't exist." Its impossible, but it is also very unlikely that they do exist. I see the generic forms of god to be no more than human invention, so I feel at least a little confident that I can say that they are simply the result of primitive superstition and misunderstanding about nature and therefore probably don't exist. I may be wrong, and if I am then I feel comfortable at least knowing that it won't be the wrathful, hateful god of christianity, and he/she/it will probably understand my lack of belief.
It is really saddening Madam that you don't like "logic thinkers" I thought you were a logical person. I hope you only misunderstood his method and thought he was saying that God has to be what most theologians have described him as, and not that he was taking this definitions and debunking them.
I also think its impossible to "niether agree nor disagree" with someone, I don't see how there could be a middle-ground. Maybe you don't want to admit to yourself that you actually agree or disagree with him, or maybe there is a middle-ground. Help me understand.
Carolina: Arguments based on faith are logically flawed as well. Faith can be a way to truth, but not a way to confirm the actuality of any belief. Its like if i flipped a coin and said "If it lands on tails, the sky is blue." If it landed on tails, then yes, flipping a coin can be a way of arriveing at truth, but the ONLY way to confirm that would be to use reason i.e. looking at the sky, and assessing its color. If faith were a reliable method at arriving at truth then all those who profess faith in their god would all agree, they'd have to, and alas they don't. Also, the nature of atheism is that it doesn't make any positive statements. People often miscontrue atheism and think it means we say there is no god. That is not the case. Atheism is a reaction to theism, it is all about debunking "proofs" for God. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, not the belief in the lack of gods.
I DOUBT that there are any gods but I can never know, precisely because the basic definitions of gods include the inability to know them. Its like saying "Prove to me that invisible elves whose true nature can never be known don't exist." Its impossible, but it is also very unlikely that they do exist. I see the generic forms of god to be no more than human invention, so I feel at least a little confident that I can say that they are simply the result of primitive superstition and misunderstanding about nature and therefore probably don't exist. I may be wrong, and if I am then I feel comfortable at least knowing that it won't be the wrathful, hateful god of christianity, and he/she/it will probably understand my lack of belief.
It is really saddening Madam that you don't like "logic thinkers" I thought you were a logical person. I hope you only misunderstood his method and thought he was saying that God has to be what most theologians have described him as, and not that he was taking this definitions and debunking them.
I also think its impossible to "niether agree nor disagree" with someone, I don't see how there could be a middle-ground. Maybe you don't want to admit to yourself that you actually agree or disagree with him, or maybe there is a middle-ground. Help me understand.
Carolina: Arguments based on faith are logically flawed as well. Faith can be a way to truth, but not a way to confirm the actuality of any belief. Its like if i flipped a coin and said "If it lands on tails, the sky is blue." If it landed on tails, then yes, flipping a coin can be a way of arriveing at truth, but the ONLY way to confirm that would be to use reason i.e. looking at the sky, and assessing its color. If faith were a reliable method at arriving at truth then all those who profess faith in their god would all agree, they'd have to, and alas they don't. Also, the nature of atheism is that it doesn't make any positive statements. People often miscontrue atheism and think it means we say there is no god. That is not the case. Atheism is a reaction to theism, it is all about debunking "proofs" for God. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, not the belief in the lack of gods.
carolinacurious:
Well, yes. What I was trying to say is that arguments based on faith are really separate from logic and can't be attacked in the same way that the "argument from design" can be. Now, if someone says, "I believe in something because of my faith and based upon this faith then YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IT TOO," then of course, that is a logically assailable argument. But if someone says, "My faith is unshakable, it doesn't matter what you say, or present, or attempt to prove, I just simply believe," then I'm free to think that I'm talking to a lunatic (or to someone who has a more direct line to something that I don't) but logic will not help me with this individual person.
Isn't that agnosticism?
Well, yes. What I was trying to say is that arguments based on faith are really separate from logic and can't be attacked in the same way that the "argument from design" can be. Now, if someone says, "I believe in something because of my faith and based upon this faith then YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IT TOO," then of course, that is a logically assailable argument. But if someone says, "My faith is unshakable, it doesn't matter what you say, or present, or attempt to prove, I just simply believe," then I'm free to think that I'm talking to a lunatic (or to someone who has a more direct line to something that I don't) but logic will not help me with this individual person.
Isn't that agnosticism?
madame_zora
Sexy Member
GBO, I apologise, my post was hurried and unlcear. By sayig I neither agree nor disagree with him, I was merely saying that I have not formed an opinion. I read several pages of his arguments, and I disliked his style so much that I didn't wish to continue. Here's why:
In logic, the general formula is "If A and B, then C". My problem with him is that one MUST first prove A and B for C to be proven, he didn't do that at all, and he seemed rather self-congradulatory on his conclusions, which I found laughable at best. Example,
"If rock A is black and rock B is white, then it is a foregone conclusion that A is darker than B and about this there is no room for error". Well, all that's true, but you must first prove that rock A is in fact black, or the conclusion is worthless.
I put "logical thinkers" in quotes because very few who claim to be this actually are, IMHO. Just saying that one's thought processes are logical doesn't make it so. I enjoy your own writing and introspection far more than the writer posted because you follow form without ignoring content, not everyone who claims to be a master of logic does that, and I find it insulting. Too often, this form is used to arrive at erroneous conclusions and the writer of said conclusions gets all puffed up about their faulty work. That was my initial impression of this man, I will give it another read, but I feel sure I will feel the same way.
Obviously, there is no way to prove the unprovable. One of the great catch-alls of the Christian faith is exactly that, God is immense and immeasurable and therefore can never be known. It is hard for a rational human being to read some of the stories in the Old Testament and not walk away shaking their head. I don't have as much trouble accepting the "supernatural" aspects as much as the very human characteristics (of God) to which I assume you are referring. Many things that we as a society consider supernatural are in fact only things we do not currently understand, it doesn't mean we never will. I don't believe that the human mind has the capacity to unlock the mysteries of the world at this time, but that doesn't mean it will never be done. We have discovered answers to several ancient mysteries and perhaps eventually this will be one more. That there cannot be a square circle is a factual statement, however, trying to fit anything about human life into so rigid a formula is almost impossible, because human issues are rarely as static as either "square" or 'circle". If we deny the reality of the fluid nature of life, our conclusions cannot help but be intrisically shallow.
FWIW, I personally believe the Bible was written by man for man-made purposes. This is my opinion based on my upbringing as an agnostic, my subsequent particiaption in several Christian churches over the span of 20 years, the history of the church, and the arrival of the church to it's current position. None of that makes me an expert, but I point it out because the subject is not unknown to me and has in fact been a matter of much independant study. To believe in the Bible as it is written takes an ability to turn off logical thinking that I do not posess. One can choose to look at it as a text for learning or a historical backdrop, but the timelines are confusing and it gives little insight to the nature of the people at the time.
Most of the New Testament describes the events surrounding one small group of people over only a three year period and makes no attempt to reconcile how these stories are to be applied to previous or future times. As a text, it is so wrought with confusion that only a genuine desire to believe there is good there can make it so. There is also judgement, disloyalty, prejudice. In the New Testament, there are calls to drop the old law in preference of obeying the New law of love (which modern day Christians all but ignore, happily quoting hatred from the Old Testament as if it were still relevant- get a clue, it's not!
but then there is also a long list of "who will not inherit the kingdom of God", included in which is a sin for almost every one of us. In other parts it says "not by works but by faith alone" will one get into heaven, so therein lies my difficulty. Why point out adultery, miserliness, greed, lust as sins that will keep one out of heaven if we all have these sins to some extent (and yes we all f%cking do! but then say if our faith is great we will be welcomed into heaven. If this is so, then homosexuals have nothing more to fear than anyone else, right? So why is it the Moral Majority can get up on their high horse and condemn another? Is not that condemnation just as great a sin? Even if the Pope does it? Sin is sin is sin, it's the same for everyone.
I no longer believe in sin, but to argue it's validity one must use the context in which it's concept occurs, the Bible. to me, the crux of the matter is that it boils down to a "chicken and the egg" dilemma. We can only achieve salvation through faith, but we can also only achieve salvation through eliminating ourselves of sin (with the help of God). So I pose this question, if I have faith and bring my sin to God, yet I still sin, has God failed or have I? If I have failed, yet I took the only action available to human beings in order to improve, then am I just to accept being damned? If God failed, he wasn't really all-powerful to begin with. If there is another option I am not seeing, I am open to hearing it. Perhaps God will accept me as long as I'm trying, that's what I hear a lot, but that's not what's written in the text, and I find human interpretations to be fruitless, as we are clearly unable to agree on the time of sunrise! I definitely don't believe in intercessors, as that puts yet another flawed human being in between me and God, and we are already having a tough enough time communicating. I sure don't need or want a flawed human being to judge the quality of my godliness, if any exists.
What I would like to have illuminated is NOT "This is how I see it" coming from anyone. I'd like to have explained through Biblical quotes an answer to that dilemma. If anyone can do that, I'd appreciate it, but I don't want opinions, please.
Sorry for the long post. I started a blog and would have put it there, but for some reason it's messed up and won't allow responses. I promise to put my stupid questions there as soon as I can. GBO hope this answers you more accurately, your questions deserved a better response.
In logic, the general formula is "If A and B, then C". My problem with him is that one MUST first prove A and B for C to be proven, he didn't do that at all, and he seemed rather self-congradulatory on his conclusions, which I found laughable at best. Example,
"If rock A is black and rock B is white, then it is a foregone conclusion that A is darker than B and about this there is no room for error". Well, all that's true, but you must first prove that rock A is in fact black, or the conclusion is worthless.
I put "logical thinkers" in quotes because very few who claim to be this actually are, IMHO. Just saying that one's thought processes are logical doesn't make it so. I enjoy your own writing and introspection far more than the writer posted because you follow form without ignoring content, not everyone who claims to be a master of logic does that, and I find it insulting. Too often, this form is used to arrive at erroneous conclusions and the writer of said conclusions gets all puffed up about their faulty work. That was my initial impression of this man, I will give it another read, but I feel sure I will feel the same way.
Obviously, there is no way to prove the unprovable. One of the great catch-alls of the Christian faith is exactly that, God is immense and immeasurable and therefore can never be known. It is hard for a rational human being to read some of the stories in the Old Testament and not walk away shaking their head. I don't have as much trouble accepting the "supernatural" aspects as much as the very human characteristics (of God) to which I assume you are referring. Many things that we as a society consider supernatural are in fact only things we do not currently understand, it doesn't mean we never will. I don't believe that the human mind has the capacity to unlock the mysteries of the world at this time, but that doesn't mean it will never be done. We have discovered answers to several ancient mysteries and perhaps eventually this will be one more. That there cannot be a square circle is a factual statement, however, trying to fit anything about human life into so rigid a formula is almost impossible, because human issues are rarely as static as either "square" or 'circle". If we deny the reality of the fluid nature of life, our conclusions cannot help but be intrisically shallow.
FWIW, I personally believe the Bible was written by man for man-made purposes. This is my opinion based on my upbringing as an agnostic, my subsequent particiaption in several Christian churches over the span of 20 years, the history of the church, and the arrival of the church to it's current position. None of that makes me an expert, but I point it out because the subject is not unknown to me and has in fact been a matter of much independant study. To believe in the Bible as it is written takes an ability to turn off logical thinking that I do not posess. One can choose to look at it as a text for learning or a historical backdrop, but the timelines are confusing and it gives little insight to the nature of the people at the time.
Most of the New Testament describes the events surrounding one small group of people over only a three year period and makes no attempt to reconcile how these stories are to be applied to previous or future times. As a text, it is so wrought with confusion that only a genuine desire to believe there is good there can make it so. There is also judgement, disloyalty, prejudice. In the New Testament, there are calls to drop the old law in preference of obeying the New law of love (which modern day Christians all but ignore, happily quoting hatred from the Old Testament as if it were still relevant- get a clue, it's not!
but then there is also a long list of "who will not inherit the kingdom of God", included in which is a sin for almost every one of us. In other parts it says "not by works but by faith alone" will one get into heaven, so therein lies my difficulty. Why point out adultery, miserliness, greed, lust as sins that will keep one out of heaven if we all have these sins to some extent (and yes we all f%cking do!
but then say if our faith is great we will be welcomed into heaven. If this is so, then homosexuals have nothing more to fear than anyone else, right? So why is it the Moral Majority can get up on their high horse and condemn another? Is not that condemnation just as great a sin? Even if the Pope does it? Sin is sin is sin, it's the same for everyone.I no longer believe in sin, but to argue it's validity one must use the context in which it's concept occurs, the Bible. to me, the crux of the matter is that it boils down to a "chicken and the egg" dilemma. We can only achieve salvation through faith, but we can also only achieve salvation through eliminating ourselves of sin (with the help of God). So I pose this question, if I have faith and bring my sin to God, yet I still sin, has God failed or have I? If I have failed, yet I took the only action available to human beings in order to improve, then am I just to accept being damned? If God failed, he wasn't really all-powerful to begin with. If there is another option I am not seeing, I am open to hearing it. Perhaps God will accept me as long as I'm trying, that's what I hear a lot, but that's not what's written in the text, and I find human interpretations to be fruitless, as we are clearly unable to agree on the time of sunrise! I definitely don't believe in intercessors, as that puts yet another flawed human being in between me and God, and we are already having a tough enough time communicating. I sure don't need or want a flawed human being to judge the quality of my godliness, if any exists.
What I would like to have illuminated is NOT "This is how I see it" coming from anyone. I'd like to have explained through Biblical quotes an answer to that dilemma. If anyone can do that, I'd appreciate it, but I don't want opinions, please.
Sorry for the long post. I started a blog and would have put it there, but for some reason it's messed up and won't allow responses. I promise to put my stupid questions there as soon as I can. GBO hope this answers you more accurately, your questions deserved a better response.
GBO, of course you and I are going to have differences of opinion because we have made different choices. You, by choice, do not have a religion, while I, also by choice, do. You are on the outside looking in. We have to follow our own consciences and intellects concerning what we do or do not believe. I'm cool with that.
Now about those little pamphlets: pointing to those as an reference of what Christians believe is like consulting The Cat in the Hat for information about typical feline behaviour.
Now about those little pamphlets: pointing to those as an reference of what Christians believe is like consulting The Cat in the Hat for information about typical feline behaviour.
steve319
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 183
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
And hey, you know, there's yet another thing about popes I just thought of...
They get to carry a staff, don't they? That's so cool.
I wish I got to carry a staff like that. I think I'd get a lot more respect from people if I carried a big, fancy-lookin' stick, don't you?
Plus I could bonk people in the head who were annoying me! That would teach them!
*bonk*
Or if they were continuing to beat a dead horse over an age-old question that no one is going to solve definitively--even the brilliant types who frequent the big dick website.
*bonk*
Yeah, it would be cool to carry a staff like the pope.
*bonk*
Or am I thinking of Gandalf....?
(not that I'm not enjoying the show...got nothing but love for you guys)
They get to carry a staff, don't they? That's so cool.
I wish I got to carry a staff like that. I think I'd get a lot more respect from people if I carried a big, fancy-lookin' stick, don't you?
Plus I could bonk people in the head who were annoying me! That would teach them!
*bonk*
Or if they were continuing to beat a dead horse over an age-old question that no one is going to solve definitively--even the brilliant types who frequent the big dick website.
*bonk*
Yeah, it would be cool to carry a staff like the pope.
*bonk*
Or am I thinking of Gandalf....?
(not that I'm not enjoying the show...got nothing but love for you guys)
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
In an earlier post, the mention was made of the word sin. The word sin has two definitions.
One, individual acts that man does that are wrong.
Two, separation from God
In the New Testament, the word sin is used more to refer to the separation from God. In Christian theology, imperfection can't be in the presence of God in Heaven. So Jana, you made a list of all that can't enter the kingdom of God. Of course they can't enter the kingdom of God. The overall arching point is that Jesus himself forgives and wipes out all of those imperfections from us BEFORE we ourselves enter heaven. Those faults of ours don't get to go to Heaven. We leave them behind.
The point about none of us would get to heaven if we were guilty of doing and the list is long a lot a stuff. Yes it is true according to Christian theology. None of us would. But we are stripped of imperfections before we enter the peraly gates. And that grace of having our imperfections removed is available to ALL.
Concerning homosexuality and heaven. Human beings in the flesh have sexual feelings because we are biological beings. The prevailing viewpoint of theologians is that none of us will be sexual beings in heaven. So there won't be any kind of sex in heaven. Does that make sex sin. NO. Spiritual beings don't have to eat, sleep.
Spiritual beings don't use the restroom either. I don't think anyone could make a rational case that useing the restroom is a sin. But I understand that there are those who looked on restroom duties as sinful and should only be engaged in as absolutely necessary in past times. There were those who trained themselves to go once or twice a day because it was dirty and sinful. This of course is a perversion of theology and believed by some who don't understand, but nevertheless, I have read that in times past some Christians thought bathroom duties were sinful. It comes from the idea that everything we as humans do and are have a sinful base and should be avoided as much as possible.
So I see where the idea that Chrsitianity is evil comes from. But it is a small group who take a truth and run with it until they come up with a perversion so great that is is unrecognizable and call it truth.
Jana, you said you always found some wonderful people in every church and then saw in every church some people and then you named the problems.
The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.
Every church has those people you talk about in them. There is not way around them. Churches have open menbership. How are you going to cull them out? On whose authority other than Jesus do we have?
Jesus said to let the wheat and the tares to grow together and that it was impossible to tell them apart until the harvest then the tares would fade away. Jesus is saying the good and the bad are grwoing up together, But the bad will be done away with. And here I believe it is the bad in us that is done away with not people themselves. Unless of course, they don't want any part of it.
One poster made it clear that he did not want to go to heaven. I don't think God will make anyone go there. It is a choice.
Reading the Bible is tricky. Which translation do you read. There are differences of opinion about which English words to use to translate. One word that is a problem is the Greek word that we translate as perfection or it may be translated complete. Both definitions are correct for the word in Greek. So which word is it. If your translation reads perfect, you will come away with a different meaning then if your translation reads complete.
And it is that way all throughout the Bible. And again Jana, I think that long list you refered to as not being able to enter into the kingdom of God is saying none of us can enter into the kingdom of God without God's grace and forgiveness.
It is hard to defend the Christian doctrine sometimes. But it is easier for me then to try to use history to show how humans are going to become better and find perfections ourselves. Our ability to destroy each other just seems to grow with each generation. I don't see humanity finding perfection and peace on its own anytime soon.
This ends this rambling post at 5:30 in the morning when I should be asleep.
One, individual acts that man does that are wrong.
Two, separation from God
In the New Testament, the word sin is used more to refer to the separation from God. In Christian theology, imperfection can't be in the presence of God in Heaven. So Jana, you made a list of all that can't enter the kingdom of God. Of course they can't enter the kingdom of God. The overall arching point is that Jesus himself forgives and wipes out all of those imperfections from us BEFORE we ourselves enter heaven. Those faults of ours don't get to go to Heaven. We leave them behind.
The point about none of us would get to heaven if we were guilty of doing and the list is long a lot a stuff. Yes it is true according to Christian theology. None of us would. But we are stripped of imperfections before we enter the peraly gates. And that grace of having our imperfections removed is available to ALL.
Concerning homosexuality and heaven. Human beings in the flesh have sexual feelings because we are biological beings. The prevailing viewpoint of theologians is that none of us will be sexual beings in heaven. So there won't be any kind of sex in heaven. Does that make sex sin. NO. Spiritual beings don't have to eat, sleep.
Spiritual beings don't use the restroom either. I don't think anyone could make a rational case that useing the restroom is a sin. But I understand that there are those who looked on restroom duties as sinful and should only be engaged in as absolutely necessary in past times. There were those who trained themselves to go once or twice a day because it was dirty and sinful. This of course is a perversion of theology and believed by some who don't understand, but nevertheless, I have read that in times past some Christians thought bathroom duties were sinful. It comes from the idea that everything we as humans do and are have a sinful base and should be avoided as much as possible.
So I see where the idea that Chrsitianity is evil comes from. But it is a small group who take a truth and run with it until they come up with a perversion so great that is is unrecognizable and call it truth.
Jana, you said you always found some wonderful people in every church and then saw in every church some people and then you named the problems.
The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.
Every church has those people you talk about in them. There is not way around them. Churches have open menbership. How are you going to cull them out? On whose authority other than Jesus do we have?
Jesus said to let the wheat and the tares to grow together and that it was impossible to tell them apart until the harvest then the tares would fade away. Jesus is saying the good and the bad are grwoing up together, But the bad will be done away with. And here I believe it is the bad in us that is done away with not people themselves. Unless of course, they don't want any part of it.
One poster made it clear that he did not want to go to heaven. I don't think God will make anyone go there. It is a choice.
Reading the Bible is tricky. Which translation do you read. There are differences of opinion about which English words to use to translate. One word that is a problem is the Greek word that we translate as perfection or it may be translated complete. Both definitions are correct for the word in Greek. So which word is it. If your translation reads perfect, you will come away with a different meaning then if your translation reads complete.
And it is that way all throughout the Bible. And again Jana, I think that long list you refered to as not being able to enter into the kingdom of God is saying none of us can enter into the kingdom of God without God's grace and forgiveness.
It is hard to defend the Christian doctrine sometimes. But it is easier for me then to try to use history to show how humans are going to become better and find perfections ourselves. Our ability to destroy each other just seems to grow with each generation. I don't see humanity finding perfection and peace on its own anytime soon.
This ends this rambling post at 5:30 in the morning when I should be asleep.
carolinacurious:
<!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Apr 26 2005, 05:43 PM
Actually, agnosticism is the belief that it can't be proven either way, hence the name.
GBO's definition still sounds closer to agnosticism to me. Not quite how I would put it, but off the top of my head, earlier, I didn't think it was a correct statement of atheism.
<!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Apr 26 2005, 05:43 PM
Actually, agnosticism is the belief that it can't be proven either way, hence the name.
[post=305184]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]GBO's definition still sounds closer to agnosticism to me. Not quite how I would put it, but off the top of my head, earlier, I didn't think it was a correct statement of atheism.
It's possible for an agnostic to believe in God, but s/he is acknowledging that blind faith is the only reason to believe. Agnostics tend to think that the God that humans imagine is incomprehensible to rational human thought, therefore his existence is impossible to prove.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
The whole point of faith is believe in something you can't see. So by some definitions even Christians are agnostics. We can't prove to someone else the existahce of God. That is a matter of faith.
And all have a belief system. It is impossible to say you have no belief system. And religion is a primary component of our belief system. Atheism is in itself a religion for some people.
And all have a belief system. It is impossible to say you have no belief system. And religion is a primary component of our belief system. Atheism is in itself a religion for some people.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
If you want to define atheism that way then I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic, but agnsoticism only deals with kowledge, or the profession of knowledge so it doesn't cover the realm of belief. I see it this way:
Theism= belief in gods
a-theism= no belief in gods.
I don't necessarily argue that there are no gods, it is impossible for me to know that. I simply lack any belief based on faith. The only God I do argue does not exist is the God described in the Bible.
Funny thing is Christians are more "atheistic" in the sense you named it than I. Because they outright deny the existences of ALL other gods than theirs. I do not do that, there's only one god I deny. And yes, by professing that theirs is the only true god they are denying the existence of every other god ever conjured up in human history, its atheism as you cited its definition.
Theism= belief in gods
a-theism= no belief in gods.
I don't necessarily argue that there are no gods, it is impossible for me to know that. I simply lack any belief based on faith. The only God I do argue does not exist is the God described in the Bible.
Funny thing is Christians are more "atheistic" in the sense you named it than I. Because they outright deny the existences of ALL other gods than theirs. I do not do that, there's only one god I deny. And yes, by professing that theirs is the only true god they are denying the existence of every other god ever conjured up in human history, its atheism as you cited its definition.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
DMW, I don't see my situation as being a choice. I don't belief in God because I am not able to. There aren't any convincing arguments that can get me to believe. I can not CHOOSE to believe in spite of any convincing evidence. Maybe some people do CHOOSE to believe in spite of evidence but I am unable to.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
According to the Bible, Jesus said I will go to others who do not know me by my name.
I know some Christians believe that a person must have a conversion experience within the realm of an organized Christian institution. I do not. The God in the Bible is the same God for Muslims. It is the same God for everyone. While Christianity doesn't accept the concept of "other Gods". It does embrace the concept of angels and sme of them are named in the Bible. A case could be made for calling them "lesser Gods", though most Christian theologians would be aghast at such a thought. Nevertheless, there are other celestial beings. It is just that the monotheistic religions, Judaism, Chrsitianity, and Islam, believe in one supreme God. All three religions claim that this God is the God that Abraham worshipped.
So when you deny the existence of a Chrsitian God, in essence, you also deny the Jewish and the Islamic God as well. They are one and the same.
There are a lot of things people who call themselves Christians do that annoy me. However, I don't think that history shows people who claim to be Christians are more evil than those people who don't claim a Christian God.
If all you know about Christianity comes from those TV shows and those tracts, I could't blame you for questioning Christianity. I am a Christian. I won't watch those shows or read those tracts. They are for the most part a perversin of what I believe. And I think I speak for DMW as well.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Freddie, I can't help but like you! Earlier you said "The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints"- with that alone I would put you as understanding what it's all about far more than the average bear. Not to mention your understanding of how other religions fit into the scheme of things, very broad minded of you. I believe you would find very liitle acceptance of that particular philosophy amoung your fellow congregation members, but as I said earlier there are always a few.
I attended a Methodist church for the last two years of high school. My mom was trying in earnest to get over her past and reconnect with God, but I was very old (16) to be thrust suddenly into a church environment never having been exposed to it or having read or known any Biblical stories. Prior to that I had defined myself as atheist by my own definiton. I've always thought the addition of "a" before a word meant "of the self" as in asexual or amoral, so "atheist" to me meant that I believe(d) that we are all the supreme beings of our own lives. This didn't limit my ability to think well of the teachings of the Bible, just that I didn't give them more significance than my own ideas or anyone else's. You try being nine years old, black, a foot taller than everyone else (I had to stand in the back row with the teacher on picture day! and carry around ideas like that! I think I got on so well in elementary school because people were afraid of me.
The Methodist church I attended (sadly) was not a place to learn about or worship God, it was a dry, spiritless place where people went to impress other people. Sure there were a very select few who were spitiually moved, but the pastor was horribly phony and there was just no getting around it. It is my personal opinion that in most Protestant churches, the pastor or pastoral team really set the mood of the Church.
I've been a member of a black Catholic church down in the hiils of Kentucky (wow, what an insight I got, that was one of the most spirit-filled places I'd ever been!, Four Square churches, Christian Assemblies, Church of God of Prophecy (you talk about fundies, but so many cool people there) Baptist, and finally ended up at a non-denominational that was referred to by the pastoral team as open denominational (the Vineyard). I've been to other Vineyard churches and didn't like them as much, they didn't have the same men in front (wearing men's clothing! and talking about life in the manner I'd come to love.
What I've come to notice is while individual people have some vastly varying views, the "collective consciousness" will move together. Despite individaul opinions, if a pastor starts talking about voting for a certain bill or law, MOST of the congrgation will do it, thinking they are serving the will of God. I've seen it happen too many times, so in effect, one man's vote counts hundreds or even thousands of times! Now, I know that not every single person will do this, but I have no question that the majority will, I've lived in four different states and been a member of over thirty different churches, things just don't differ that greatly.
I love good hearted people who follow their own code of ethics, it's just when mine starts getting legislated that I get irate, as should we all. If anyone out there is NOT irate simply because they agree with the law, they are missing the point. The point is, what if the next law is one you DON'T agree with? If we give over too much authority to our government, where will it end? It's easy to be a nodding head and feel the warmth that belonging to the majority can produce, but what happens when the government has all the power they want and now they're passing laws YOU don't like? The issue is NOT the issue, but rather how much rope do we want to give our government to hang us with?
I attended a Methodist church for the last two years of high school. My mom was trying in earnest to get over her past and reconnect with God, but I was very old (16) to be thrust suddenly into a church environment never having been exposed to it or having read or known any Biblical stories. Prior to that I had defined myself as atheist by my own definiton. I've always thought the addition of "a" before a word meant "of the self" as in asexual or amoral, so "atheist" to me meant that I believe(d) that we are all the supreme beings of our own lives. This didn't limit my ability to think well of the teachings of the Bible, just that I didn't give them more significance than my own ideas or anyone else's. You try being nine years old, black, a foot taller than everyone else (I had to stand in the back row with the teacher on picture day!
and carry around ideas like that! I think I got on so well in elementary school because people were afraid of me.The Methodist church I attended (sadly) was not a place to learn about or worship God, it was a dry, spiritless place where people went to impress other people. Sure there were a very select few who were spitiually moved, but the pastor was horribly phony and there was just no getting around it. It is my personal opinion that in most Protestant churches, the pastor or pastoral team really set the mood of the Church.
I've been a member of a black Catholic church down in the hiils of Kentucky (wow, what an insight I got, that was one of the most spirit-filled places I'd ever been!
, Four Square churches, Christian Assemblies, Church of God of Prophecy (you talk about fundies, but so many cool people there) Baptist, and finally ended up at a non-denominational that was referred to by the pastoral team as open denominational (the Vineyard). I've been to other Vineyard churches and didn't like them as much, they didn't have the same men in front (wearing men's clothing! and talking about life in the manner I'd come to love.What I've come to notice is while individual people have some vastly varying views, the "collective consciousness" will move together. Despite individaul opinions, if a pastor starts talking about voting for a certain bill or law, MOST of the congrgation will do it, thinking they are serving the will of God. I've seen it happen too many times, so in effect, one man's vote counts hundreds or even thousands of times! Now, I know that not every single person will do this, but I have no question that the majority will, I've lived in four different states and been a member of over thirty different churches, things just don't differ that greatly.
I love good hearted people who follow their own code of ethics, it's just when mine starts getting legislated that I get irate, as should we all. If anyone out there is NOT irate simply because they agree with the law, they are missing the point. The point is, what if the next law is one you DON'T agree with? If we give over too much authority to our government, where will it end? It's easy to be a nodding head and feel the warmth that belonging to the majority can produce, but what happens when the government has all the power they want and now they're passing laws YOU don't like? The issue is NOT the issue, but rather how much rope do we want to give our government to hang us with?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 28 2005, 02:27 PM
Freddie, I can't help but like you! Earlier you said "The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints"- with that alone I would put you as understanding what it's all about far more than the average bear. Not to mention your understanding of how other religions fit into the scheme of things, very broad minded of you. I believe you would find very liitle acceptance of that particular philosophy amoung your fellow congregation members, but as I said earlier there are always a few.
I attended a Methodist church for the last two years of high school. My mom was trying in earnest to get over her past and reconnect with God, but I was very old (16) to be thrust suddenly into a church environment never having been exposed to it or having read or known any Biblical stories. Prior to that I had defined myself as atheist by my own definiton. I've always thought the addition of "a" before a word meant "of the self" as in asexual or amoral, so "atheist" to me meant that I believe(d) that we are all the supreme beings of our own lives. This didn't limit my ability to think well of the teachings of the Bible, just that I didn't give them more significance than my own ideas or anyone else's. You try being nine years old, black, a foot taller than everyone else (I had to stand in the back row with the teacher on picture day!
The Methodist church I attended (sadly) was not a place to learn about or worship God, it was a dry, spiritless place where people went to impress other people. Sure there were a very select few who were spitiually moved, but the pastor was horribly phony and there was just no getting around it. It is my personal opinion that in most Protestant churches, the pastor or pastoral team really set the mood of the Church.
I've been a member of a black Catholic church down in the hiils of Kentucky (wow, what an insight I got, that was one of the most spirit-filled places I'd ever been!
What I've come to notice is while individual people have some vastly varying views, the "collective consciousness" will move together. Despite individaul opinions, if a pastor starts talking about voting for a certain bill or law, MOST of the congrgation will do it, thinking they are serving the will of God. I've seen it happen too many times, so in effect, one man's vote counts hundreds or even thousands of times! Now, I know that not every single person will do this, but I have no question that the majority will, I've lived in four different states and been a member of over thirty different churches, things just don't differ that greatly.
I love good hearted people who follow their own code of ethics, it's just when mine starts getting legislated that I get irate, as should we all. If anyone out there is NOT irate simply because they agree with the law, they are missing the point. The point is, what if the next law is one you DON'T agree with? If we give over too much authority to our government, where will it end? It's easy to be a nodding head and feel the warmth that belonging to the majority can produce, but what happens when the government has all the power they want and now they're passing laws YOU don't like? The issue is NOT the issue, but rather how much rope do we want to give our government to hang us with?
[post=305839]Quoted post[/post]
Thanks for your compliment. I value it very much. I tried to teach that to my youth. I read that quote from the original Dear Abby and thought it was a wonderful quote and I use it all the time. It is not oriignal with me, but I believe every word in it. (The church is a hospital for sinners, not a musuem for saints.)
Sorry your experience with the Methodist Church in high school wasn't pleasant, but you were made to go and church is boring for youth that age anyway.
But you are right, the pastor sets the tone for the church. If he is boring the service wil be boring. If he brings politics into the service then it will affact the people.
Personally, I believe the worship service is the WRONG place to be pushing bills and talking politics.
I am there to worship the Almighty God and to have my soul refreshed for the next week. I don't want to hear politics in the church service.
In the Methodist Churches around here, no minister that I know of has interjected politics into the church service. I think they would get into trouble if they did.
I think you would like the theology of the United Church of Christ (Congregational) and the Unitarian. I know that the United Church of Christ has officially voted and does not consider homosexuality a sin. I doubt the Unitarian Church ever did consider it a sin.
Those are the most liberal churches that have many members in the United States. Can't say you would enjoy the worship service. Never been to one. Both denominations only have one church in Arkansas and that is in Little Rock.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
According to the Bible, Jesus said I will go to others who do not know me by my name.
I know some Christians believe that a person must have a conversion experience within the realm of an organized Christian institution. I do not. The God in the Bible is the same God for Muslims. It is the same God for everyone. While Christianity doesn't accept the concept of "other Gods". It does embrace the concept of angels and sme of them are named in the Bible. A case could be made for calling them "lesser Gods", though most Christian theologians would be aghast at such a thought. Nevertheless, there are other celestial beings. It is just that the monotheistic religions, Judaism, Chrsitianity, and Islam, believe in one supreme God. All three religions claim that this God is the God that Abraham worshipped.
So when you deny the existence of a Chrsitian God, in essence, you also deny the Jewish and the Islamic God as well. They are one and the same.
There are a lot of things people who call themselves Christians do that annoy me. However, I don't think that history shows people who claim to be Christians are more evil than those people who don't claim a Christian God.
If all you know about Christianity comes from those TV shows and those tracts, I could't blame you for questioning Christianity. I am a Christian. I won't watch those shows or read those tracts. They are for the most part a perversin of what I believe. And I think I speak for DMW as well.
[post=305819]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]I am very offended that you assume that the only knowledge of christianity i have is from tv shows. That is not the case, and I hope you don't continue thinking that. Just know that your "version" of christianity isn't the only one, and I doubt you cant convincingly argue that it is the "trueest" version. It may be for oyu, but the Bible often disagrees. Yes, you can cite certain verses in the Bible which uphold your beliefs, but I could cite many other contradictions as well against your belief. Thats whats wrong with the bible, its not consistent.
Also I find it very telling that you equate "atheistic" with evil. That is also very insulting. I said that christians are more atheistic by your definition because they deny all other gods but theirs and you took it to mean I was saying they were more evil, and you failed to realize that there are more gods than the god of abraham which the jews, muslims, and christians worship. what about the numerous gods of greek mythology, and the hindu religion?
You were also inconsistent because you said I denied more than one god because i denied jews, muslims, and christians. But as you said its all the same god, so again I am only denying one god.
Throughout history, people who have claimed to be christian have done a great number of evil things, and I would argue since atheists are a great minority, that christians are responsible for more injustice than atheists only because they outnumber them.
The God in the Bible is the same God for Muslims. It is the same God for EVERYONE.
This so often is the attitude expressed by so many closed minded people. There are not only three religions, and they don't include everyone. Your god is not universal, and has no more merit than any other god invented by tribal cultures in the heart of the jungle. It all comes from superstition and the fear of natural events not undestood by primitive thinking people.
Similar threads
