God

[smalltime jam bandit]

1.

Allow me to simplify what you said: Might makes Right. God is all-powerful, so he can do what he bloody well pleases, no matter how evil it is. I'm surprised, bandit. You never struck me as the Machiavellian type.

I wasn’t saying - God is all-powerful, therefore everything He does is just and right. That wouldn’t make very much sense, I agree. God is all-powerful, and God is just. But these are 2 different aspects of His nature – you can’t derive 1 from the other. What I was trying to do at that point was argue against God being insecure. I was saying God is self existent, all-powerful, unrestricted (except that He cannot deny His own nature), and is not at all threatened by those who oppose Him THEREFORE to say He is insecure sounds a bit funny.

2.

If people didn’t sin they could still enjoy sex just as much. God invented sex to be amazing and wonderful. Its not a sin to experience sexual desire and pleasure. It’s a sin to abuse it. I think (although what do I know) that sex would be far better if people did it the way God says. I think if people only had sex with people they loved and had committed themselves too, that would make it much more sacred and special and better. I think there must be something wrong with the way people do it these days – if men who have sex regularly with different partners still need to look at porn or go to strip clubs then the sex they are getting can’t be satisfying them.

3.

No Pride? No friendship.
No Envy? No contentedness.
No Guttony? No satisfaction.
No Lust? No procreation OR ambition.
No Anger? No joy.
No Greed? No generosity.
No Sloth? No civilisation.

So you are saying that we only know these positive emotions and thoughts – and they only exist - because we know negative ones – or that good only exists because evil exists.

(I don’t agree – Jesus never sinned but He was completely human [as well as being completely God] and He had human emotions – eg. He knew love (John 15 v 9), compassion (Matthew 9.36) friendship (John 15 v15) etc. Heaven will be a place where there is no sin or sorrow - but there will not be boredom and there will be love and happiness – to an extent that no one on earth knows)

But if you are right about that and I’m wrong – and we only know positive things because of the negative things brought on by sin - I still maintain that sin is in its nature bad. When the shootings in Washington were going on I realised a bit more that Norwich is a safe and secure place to live, and it made me see that I have security – but that doesn’t mean I think the shootings were a good thing. I’d be a bit sick if I thought that. We may get good out of sufferings and death and problems – but I say they are still bad things caused by sin - and I maintain that its not unreasonable to hate sin.

4.

You believe 'sin' is wrong because your parents and the bible told you so. Morals aren't universal.

Well it must be just my parents really – I knew it was wrong to harm people long before I understood what the Bible said about sin. So my morals have just come from my parents. That means that it was OK for the Aztecs tear someone's beating heart out of their chest – because their parents didn’t tell them it was wrong, so they didn’t think it was wrong. We’ve got no reason to look at them as morally inferior to us. For them, it wasn’t wrong. Wrong and evil doesn’t exist as a universal thing – it only exists in someone’s mind - so it can’t have been wrong for the Aztecs to do that.

In which case, when you say

you're (if he exists) god is an evil, sadistic creature

what exactly do you mean by evil? I thought I knew what you meant, but now I’m wondering. If evil is not a universal thing, then what do you mean when you say evil? Surely all you mean is ‘ God has a quality which my parents brought me up to believe was evil ‘. But what about if you had never been born, and God was still the same God – would He still be evil then? What about if God had never created man – would He still be evil? Well no, if there is no such thing as universal evil, God can’t be universally evil.

So the statement ‘God is evil’ has no meaning. It can’t do, because we’re not stating whose understanding of evil we’re talking about. The statement ‘Thatjerk thinks God is evil’ does have meaning. But what if ‘Someotherjerk thinks that God is good’. Well thatjerk would be no more right than someotherjerk, and someotherjerk would be no more right than thatjerk. They could argue for weeks and get nowhere. They could leave long and exhaustive and convincing posts on a forum, and plan all day what they’re going to say to each other, and scare everyone else away from the forum. But neither one would be universally right or wrong, so they might as well give up.

Now I am pretty much absolutely sure that you will be able to make convincing sounding arguments against these 4 points. When I posted things before, I thought, ‘I’ve stumped him this time’ – but now I’m getting used to you being able to argue convincingly against any strong argument.

But can I ask you a straight forward question (or several of them)…?

If the bible is nothing but fact and God is real then he can kiss my ass.
If he decides to fry me for my rejection of him then I'll be a martyr for free thought and intellectual honesty.

I was wondering what it was about free thought and intellectual honesty which is better than eternal life and eternal happiness.

As I understand it, free thought and intellectual honesty are similar things. They mean not being bound by anything in your thoughts and intellect. So not believing anything just because you’re told, but only believing what you can understand and derive yourself. Or if not that - being totally free to think what you like. So similar to the attitude of the people in Luke 19 v 14.

I still use my intellect and my mind – being a Christian hasn’t taken that away from me. What it has done is meant that I can accept things that I haven’t got a hope of understanding. I can’t understand infinity. I can’t understand how there can have been a beginning to the universe; neither can I understand how there could have been a time when nothing existed. But I still have an opinion on the subject – I accept certain things that I read about the subject, and I accept the Bible’s teaching about the beginning of the universe. Becoming a Christian has made me realise that my mind and my intellect has limitations. I will never be able to find out everything or understand everything. If I only accepted and believed what I could fully understand I wouldn’t believe very much at all. But I can still use my mind to appreciate the amazing things in the Bible that I can understand.

Can you tell me what you hope to achieve with free thought. If you live to old age and you are on your death bed, about to face God, what will you have done or found out or achieved with free thought and intellectual honesty?

The thing many people seem to be searching for is the meaning of life. There have been people believing there is some universal meaning to the world, and wanting to discover it, all through the course of time. People have used their own intellect and thought, but never achieved this. That is one thing that it seems you can’t achieve with free thought.

What can you achieve? Can you achieve anything with free thought that is worth going through eternal death and punishment for? And how will your martyrdom help the cause of free thought?

I probably won’t post for a while cos I’ve got tonnes of work.

I say these things because I want you to have eternal life and I want you to know the joy that knowing God brings.

 

[ThatJerk]

I wasn’t saying - God is all-powerful, therefore everything He does is just and right. That wouldn’t make very much sense, I agree. God is all-powerful, and God is just. But these are 2 different aspects of His nature – you can’t derive 1 from the other.

I most certainly can make that connection. By your own admission:

God has all power – He can do whatever He chooses, except deny His nature. God is in a ununderstandable amazing relationship of love – between God the Father and God the Son.

God is all-powerful.

God is something that no humans are – He is self existent. We rely on the breath and the health that God gives us to survive. If God ended my life now then I’d have no choice – I would die. But God is not reliant on anything – He is self existent.

God can do whatever he feels like. You acknowledge his right to smite you and anybody else at a whim, IE he has power and the right to use it. Where did he acquire this right? Who or what gave it to him? Or did he unilaterally decide that he has the right to do as he pleases; if so, who's to stop him? Do you see what I mean?

The American government has taken a position on the international stage as the self-appointed 'global policeman' (read: thug). It intervenes and interferes as it pleases in the affairs of numerous countries. Why? Because it's trying to keep its corporations rich. Who's to stop it, or say "hey, this isn't fair."? Nobody, because it is the most powerful single nation on the planet. The prevailant attitude among most people in that country is "We'll act multilaterally if possible and unilaterally if we must.", IE "We can do what we bloody well please, so if people don't want to play it our way then fuck 'em."

Namely, we have the power to do as we please and WILL use it. See any similarities?

If people didn’t sin they could still enjoy sex just as much. God invented sex to be amazing and wonderful. Its not a sin to experience sexual desire and pleasure. It’s a sin to abuse it.

Then why is it necessary to remove one's foreskin to enter into the covenant of God? Circumcision greatly decreases the time it takes for the male to ejaculate, as the head of the penis is far more sensitive without the foreskin covering it. Pleasure is greatly reduced for both partners, particularly for the woman because she simply won't have time to reach orgasm. And we can't forget that when circumcised, it is impossible (or nearly so; I wouldn't know for certain) to masturbate without lubrication.

If God didn't have issues with sex, why did he make it necessary for his people to mutilate themselves and their children in a way that very specifically reduces sexual pleasure? The bible makes it evident just how much God hates foreskins, as he goes on for five whole verses in Genesis 17 about circumcision, culminating in 17:14.

Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

A man will be outcast for not having part of his penis hacked? Maybe God has some inadequacy issues. The bible goes on...

1 Samuel 18:25 "And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines."

1 Samuel 18:26 "And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired."

1 Samuel 18:27 "Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife."

Saul sets the price of marriage to his daughter at 100 Phillistine foreskins, in the hopes that David will be killed in the attempt of gathering them. Rather, no doubt because God was on his side, David gleefully goes forth and slays 200 of them and returns to claim his bride (no doubt still covered in blood; butchery is messy work).

I agree; using someone sexually is wrong. However, it seems pretty clear that God hates pretty well all kinds of sexual pleasure; why else would he hate foreskins?

I think there must be something wrong with the way people do it these days – if men who have sex regularly with different partners still need to look at porn or go to strip clubs then the sex they are getting can’t be satisfying them.

I hate to burst your bubble, but men who are happily married or in a steady monogomous relationship look at porn just as readily as men who are either single or 'swinging'. Looking at porn has nothing to do with how happy or healthy someone's sex life is. For myself, while the appeal of strip clubs is a mystery, I know that I've been into porn just as much while I've been in long-term relationships as not.

(I don’t agree – Jesus never sinned but He was completely human [as well as being completely God] and He had human emotions – eg. He knew love (John 15 v 9), compassion (Matthew 9.36) friendship (John 15 v15) etc. Heaven will be a place where there is no sin or sorrow - but there will not be boredom and there will be love and happiness – to an extent that no one on earth knows)

Ah, you say Jesus didn't sin; but he KNEW of it. He still had the very human POTENTIAL for sin (was he not tempted by satan?) even while he didn't engage in it. Don't confuse this fact with the notion that sin simply wasn't present in him.

I'll give Islam this: at least they make their heaven out to be a fun place; sloe-eyed virgins, eternal erections, the whole nine yards. Your idea of heaven seems dreadfully boring; while no more sorrow is a nice idea, the idea of just sitting around and basking in God's presence for all eternity seems rather monotonous.

But if you are right about that and I’m wrong – and we only know positive things because of the negative things brought on by sin - I still maintain that sin is in its nature bad. When the shootings in Washington were going on I realised a bit more that Norwich is a safe and secure place to live, and it made me see that I have security – but that doesn’t mean I think the shootings were a good thing. I’d be a bit sick if I thought that. We may get good out of sufferings and death and problems – but I say they are still bad things caused by sin - and I maintain that its not unreasonable to hate sin.

You've missed the point; appreciating what you have in light of terrifying events is hardly analogous to actually APPROVING of said events. Acknowledging the worst of human nature does not mean you approve of it's manifestations.

The problem with the whole concept of sin (and I include 'sin' that I don't take to be bad as well as things I agree are bad; killing, stealing, rape, unecessary anger, greed, gluttony), is that it tries to deny a very powerful and defining part of human nature; labelling these traits as evil and saying "don't do them, no matter what" will only create more problems than it fixes. Ever wonder why sexual perversion and fetishism seems to be so rampant in our society? That's repressed sexual energy at work.

Rather, people should be taught to acknowledge such traits and thoughts and to deal with them and work them through, rather than just deny their existence or forcibly ignore them. I'm sure you know the analogy about sweeping dust under the rug; if people are taught to avoid 'sin', they will eventually short circuit trying to accomplish something that would be impossible without a radical rewiring of the human brain. The same idea is true of the Christian movement in the states to get sexual education out of American classrooms; they seem to believe that if adolescants don't hear about how to go about sex responsibly, they won't go about it at all. What they fail to acknowledge is the fact that these 'children of God' are going through some biological loops and are feeling very new urges, the nature of which they haven't a clue about. Rather than abstain these kids will reinvent the wheel, and will encounter many problems (pregnancy, STDs) that they could have avoided with a bit of education. Do you see how the analogy applies? And this is only for things I acknowledge as 'bad'. For things like lust, pride, sloth etc, these things simply do not hurt anybody when they aren't taken to the extreme; teaching decency will have a far more positive effect than saying "pride is bad, so don't feel it."

Well it must be just my parents really – I knew it was wrong to harm people long before I understood what the Bible said about sin. So my morals have just come from my parents.

Precisely. And you would have been just as good a person (or perhaps better) if you hadn't determined, through the bible, that stupid things like pride and lust were bad as well; your parents seem to have taught you decency as well as the idea that harming others is bad.

That means that it was OK for the Aztecs tear someone's beating heart out of their chest – because their parents didn’t tell them it was wrong, so they didn’t think it was wrong. We’ve got no reason to look at them as morally inferior to us. For them, it wasn’t wrong. Wrong and evil doesn’t exist as a universal thing – it only exists in someone’s mind - so it can’t have been wrong for the Aztecs to do that.

It wasn't wrong to THEM, and in that day and age it was perfectly acceptable (the Israelites did their share of virgin sacrifices and the like). However, we now believe (correctly, in my opinion) that senseless bloodshed is wrong. I'm not JUSTIFYING their actions, I merely point out the fact that morals are fluid and far from absolute.

what exactly do you mean by evil? I thought I knew what you meant, but now I’m wondering. If evil is not a universal thing, then what do you mean when you say evil? Surely all you mean is ‘ God has a quality which my parents brought me up to believe was evil ‘. But what about if you had never been born, and God was still the same God – would He still be evil then? What about if God had never created man – would He still be evil? Well no, if there is no such thing as universal evil, God can’t be universally evil.

That's good of you to catch that little problem with my arguement, but I'm sorry to say that it won't be good enough. To elaborate on my previous point: while morals are fluid, I still adhere to a set that I believe to be true and correct; I'm not a nihlist by any stretch of the word. I believe in secular humanism; namely, the idea that every human being has the right to live life happily and freely as they see fit. This is a belief that, while taught by my parents, I have reconfirmed through my own thoughts and analysis. From this belief and outlook, I declare your God to be an evil entity.

I also believe that the people of previous ages were wrong to hold human life so cheaply, but I don't think that they were bad or immoral people for it; they simply thought differently and (for lack of better words) didn't know any better. Now we've grown somewhat, and believe as a whole (in the west, anyhow) that human life is worth something for its own sake. My issue with 'sin' is the idea that pretty well every aspect of human nature has been labeled 'good' or 'bad', black or white, regardless of how much or little harm it may actually do to others. This is just tyrannical.

Now I am pretty much absolutely sure that you will be able to make convincing sounding arguments against these 4 points. When I posted things before, I thought, ‘I’ve stumped him this time’ – but now I’m getting used to you being able to argue convincingly against any strong argument.

Flattery means nothing to me . Thanks anyhow, though I do have to wonder at the term 'convincing sounding arguements'. Does this imply that my arguements will be/were thinly-veiled bullshit? I doubt this is the case, but I would suggest being careful not to be careless with your language in the future.

I was wondering what it was about free thought and intellectual honesty which is better than eternal life and eternal happiness.

:bugeye: Ignorance is bliss, is that it? You imply that forsaking critical and intelligent thought is the key to happiness. I'll take hellfire first, thanks. At least Satan has the balls to stand up to God's tyranny.

As I understand it, free thought and intellectual honesty are similar things. They mean not being bound by anything in your thoughts and intellect. So not believing anything just because you’re told, but only believing what you can understand and derive yourself. Or if not that - being totally free to think what you like. So similar to the attitude of the people in Luke 19 v 14.

'Intellectual freedom' in the bible is encouraged until you start seriously considering the fact that God is fiction, or questioning it's teachings. Then you're a heretic and evil. That's a pretty strong constraint there; they're SO generous in giving one the chance to repent such evil ideas and rejoin the flock.

I still use my intellect and my mind – being a Christian hasn’t taken that away from me. What it has done is meant that I can accept things that I haven’t got a hope of understanding. I can’t understand infinity. I can’t understand how there can have been a beginning to the universe; neither can I understand how there could have been a time when nothing existed. But I still have an opinion on the subject – I accept certain things that I read about the subject, and I accept the Bible’s teaching about the beginning of the universe. Becoming a Christian has made me realise that my mind and my intellect has limitations. I will never be able to find out everything or understand everything. If I only accepted and believed what I could fully understand I wouldn’t believe very much at all. But I can still use my mind to appreciate the amazing things in the Bible that I can understand.

Of course you can use your intellect and mind. Until you question God's existence or the bible's validity, in which case intellect shuts down and dogma kicks in.
Of course you can't truely comprehend things like infinity and time before time; no one can truely comprehend them, even if they understand the concept. I don't pretend to have answers to such questions, but I don't feel the need to IMPOSE answers upon them; I'm far happier not knowing about them than saying 'God did it' and leaving it at that.
Having intellectual honesty and freedom of thought do not mean that I think I have all the answers to those questions. Rather, it allows me to accept the inherant chaos and inexplicability of the universe AS the system, rather than attempt to apply human ideas of order to a system that is clearly beyond human scope. The Big Bang occured. Stuff happened. I'm sitting at a computer puzzling over it. What more do I need to KNOW? Supposition is fine and dandy, but your God is just one more explanation and a rather fantastical and unlikely one at that.

Can you tell me what you hope to achieve with free thought. If you live to old age and you are on your death bed, about to face God, what will you have done or found out or achieved with free thought and intellectual honesty?

Well, I won't be facing God, so that's hardly a worry of mine. What will I have found out? I don't know. What will I have achieved? If I'm lucky, even one Christian will have listened to logic and rational thought and renounced their beliefs. What will I have done? Lived according to my beliefs and given tyranny of thought the finger.

The thing many people seem to be searching for is the meaning of life. There have been people believing there is some universal meaning to the world, and wanting to discover it, all through the course of time. People have used their own intellect and thought, but never achieved this. That is one thing that it seems you can’t achieve with free thought.

Do you want to know a secret? There is no greater purpose to life. Search all you like for a universal meaning, and you will fail. Rather, search for and create a meaning to your OWN life; do what you like, live free, and don't play too rough. If you decide to create a meaning for yourself through your God, whatever floats your boat, but know that it is a creation of your own mind rather than a universal Meaning.

I say these things because I want you to have eternal life and I want you to know the joy that knowing God brings.

Your concern for me is flattering, but I suggest considering the fact that your 'eternal life' is nothing more than a security-blanket to help you and other Christians deal with life and the thought of it ending.
I, unlike you, have no use for the 'joy' knowing your God brings; you say yourself I need to lay aside my freedom of thought to experience it. I despise tyranny of any kind, and your God is worse than any dictator on earth. At least with any earthly dictator I could still think as I pleased; under God I couldn't even think illegal thoughts without risking punishment.

I arrive at ALL of my conclusions through clear, logical, secular and unbiased thinking. I am satisfied with the idea that life is pointless and that there is no order to the universe that we can comprehend; rather, I am happy in knowing that the chaos that we try so hard to systemify is in fact the very system we are seeking. There IS a natural order to things, and it is what you allow yourself to observe, rather than what you think it ought to be; unknowns are just as much a part of it as facts.

 

[secretasianman]

I didn't read every single word in this thread (as I get the feeling I've heard the same argument a thousand times), but here's my two cents as a non-Christian with a religious background:

ThatJerk - Some of your posts don't seem very rational to me either, I'm kinda amazed (amused?) by the bitterness that pervades most of your posts - I don't wish to get into a quoting war because I simply don't have time for chest-thumping and ego massaging BS.

Also - why do you quote scripture so freely? Are you sure you understand everything that is being said and implied?
In your little rant on circumcision, you talk about "five whole verses" (out of 2000 pages? come on now...), and you don't seem to understand the context in which much of the Old Testament was written, as opposed to the New Testament.

ThatJerk (and many others on this forum, from what I've seen so far), I don't think that your idea of Christians and mine coincide at all, and I *think* I can see why - when all you're presented with is gross parodies of Christianity (the Jerry Falwells, the conservatives, the Ned Flanders/Reverend Lovejoys), it's natural to mistrust the whole picture. Or maybe this doesn't apply to you as much...?
At any rate, allow me to suggest another possibility: God created mankind (in His image/likeness - with the capacity for both reason and emotion) so that we could have an eternal relationship with Him. This idea has cleared up many of MY personal questions/objections to Christianity (some of which I see in your objections), and totally reshaped MY way of thinking about the Old Testament. I have yet to commit to this belief or become a Christian (that is, to accept the relationship with Christ), but this idea - which I plan to test and try to disprove until I am satisfied in its truth/falseness - is perhaps the most beautiful idea I have ever encountered in my 18 years of life.
Sounds pretty lame, but I'm not a very convincing writer so let me explain a few things to you: I was first introduced to this idea by my sister (now a junior at UC Berkeley), who at first was very skeptical and cynical about the Christian scene as a first semester freshman (it took two years for her to accept Christ) - only after two years of apologetics and observing the Christians at her church was she able to trust Christianity. She had to see the profound, lasting changes in the people-called-Christians first - and we're talking about a group of intelligent, progressive people in a proven liberal environment.
It ain't proof, but I hope that it piques your interest. Do you want to see how "the idea" applies to the Old Testament (I'm not a Christian; I'm just passing on a very interesting way of thinking)?

 

[Vienna]

Secret,

In a desperate effort to be taken seriously by our 'couldn't-care-less society,' the Christian churches are now coming together in an 'Ecumenical Movement.' They are seeking world-wide unity! Alas, they are not uniting under the banner of Bible truth and righteousness, but under a hazy, watery constitution which allows everyone to believe what they want; so long as they 'love one another and keep the peace.' The laws and doctrines by which the Bible Prophets, Apostles and Reformers lived and died, are jettisoned in favour of smooth-sounding clichés which will eventually accommodate all the religions of the world! All will find repose under the so-called 'banner of love and peace!'

What is your view of this?

Vienna

 

[ThatJerk]

ThatJerk - Some of your posts don't seem very rational to me either, I'm kinda amazed (amused?) by the bitterness that pervades most of your posts - I don't wish to get into a quoting war because I simply don't have time for chest-thumping and ego massaging BS.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'not rational'? Do you mean my ideas or the presentation of them? I'll admit that I can be a little on the derisive side, but I have have a low tolerance for what I perceive to be rank ignorance. Or are you saying that I am in fact completely mistaken in my ideas? I'm curious about what you mean by 'chest-thumping and ego massaging'... are you implying that I'm masturbating my ego here?

I can't quite tell if you're insulting me or not; for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume not, but be clearer in the future. Don't drop blanket statements and pseudo-insults without some explanation.

Oh yes, and if you don't want a 'quoting war', then don't ask me a number of questions and follow up with a large statement on religion that you clearly want me to be moved by. You're just ASKING for a vebal dissection. If you plan on making an arguementative statement (as you have done), then don't cop out and try to get out of a debate; at least have the diginity to try and defend your opinions rather than just drop them at me and then say "sorry, I don't want to talk about it further".

Also - why do you quote scripture so freely? Are you sure you understand everything that is being said and implied?
In your little rant on circumcision, you talk about "five whole verses" (out of 2000 pages? come on now...), and you don't seem to understand the context in which much of the Old Testament was written, as opposed to the New Testament.

I quote scripture because it exposes the bible for what it really is, a cesspool of violence and injustice. Don't insult my intelligence; of course I understand everything that is being said and implied, why else would I SAY it then? I'm not in the habit of throwing opinions about left and right without first researching them. Instead of latching onto any biblical quote and saying "hah, eat that!" I'll instead read the entire chapter, so that I can understand the CONTEXT of the quote and UNDERSTAND what it implies (ie that God hates foreskins, as my raving, spittle-punctuated 'rant' states).

It may be only 'five whole verses' out of 2000 pages, but God sure drives the point home quite strongly: no one in his tribe is to have a foreskin, no matter how they came into it. Even slaves who have been purchased must be circumcised.

And please, enlighten me as to the different contexts of the O.T. and the N.T. Are you another apologist who says "well, the O.T. really isn't that bad because the N.T. is there"? Or did you just fire that off without understanding the implications of it?

ThatJerk (and many others on this forum, from what I've seen so far), I don't think that your idea of Christians and mine coincide at all, and I *think* I can see why - when all you're presented with is gross parodies of Christianity (the Jerry Falwells, the conservatives, the Ned Flanders/Reverend Lovejoys), it's natural to mistrust the whole picture.

I'm not talking about decent Christians who are willing to meet me in reasonable debate here or anywhere else, or those who believe but don't feel the need to force it down the throats of everybody they know, that is true. However, the fact that nazis like Jerry Falwell can have such a huge following speaks volumes for me as to just what the 'big picture' is.

I know that there is a vast spectrum of Christians, ranging from people who don't read the bible and never go the church and believe in God to those fundamentalists who'd like nothing better than to dictate every aspect of life in terms of God. I know that for every truely wacky Christian there are numerous, more reasonable ones. But that doesn't seem to change the fact that atheists and people of other religious bents are still openly discriminated against for not being Christian in all walks of life; I certainly don't hear much about them being stood-up for, unless the ACLU becomes involved.

At any rate, allow me to suggest another possibility: God created mankind (in His image/likeness - with the capacity for both reason and emotion) so that we could have an eternal relationship with Him. This idea has cleared up many of MY personal questions/objections to Christianity (some of which I see in your objections), and totally reshaped MY way of thinking about the Old Testament.

I'm glad that works for you, but there's one teensy problem: I've heard it many times before. My objections stem from many things, but the idea of being created solely to adore something or someone is repulsive to me and any creature that would feel the need to do such a thing is below my contempt.

I have yet to commit to this belief or become a Christian (that is, to accept the relationship with Christ), but this idea - which I plan to test and try to disprove until I am satisfied in its truth/falseness - is perhaps the most beautiful idea I have ever encountered in my 18 years of life.

Truth in religion is subjective. If 'your' idea works for you and you find it beautiful, then good for you, I hope it makes you happy. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that you can prove or disprove an idea like that; you either decide it must be so or not. Evidence has little to do with such questions.

I was first introduced to this idea by my sister (now a junior at UC Berkeley), who at first was very skeptical and cynical about the Christian scene as a first semester freshman (it took two years for her to accept Christ) - only after two years of apologetics and observing the Christians at her church was she able to trust Christianity.

Don't mistake skepticism for atheism or any other form of non-Christianity; I'm not a skeptic. I'm an atheist, which means I'm not merely skeptical about religion, I whole-heartedly believe that it's a fairy tale. Skepticism means that while you question an idea, you're still open to it. I completely reject Christianity, every last part of it. This isn't a matter of trust; no amount of 'apologism' will make me think "well golly, these Christian folk sure are dandy, so I'll worship their God". The fact that she was merely mistrustful of Christianity further indicates that she was only somewhat skeptical and far from atheist, ergo, she is hardly an example of someone 'finding the light'. Rather, she is an example of a skeptic being taken into the fold after much coaxing and soft words of encouragement.

She had to see the profound, lasting changes in the people-called-Christians first - and we're talking about a group of intelligent, progressive people in a proven liberal environment.

The only change I'll approve of is the complete rejection of the bible, and even then I'll remain atheist; another reason why I reject religion is the fact that it is nothing more than supposition and an attempt to impose structure on a world and universe that make no sense to us.

It ain't proof, but I hope that it piques your interest. Do you want to see how "the idea" applies to the Old Testament (I'm not a Christian; I'm just passing on a very interesting way of thinking)?

It would be interesting (in an academic sense) if it were original. I would ask you to show how this 'idea' of yours applies to the Old Testament, but I'm sure I've heard it before and that I've made arguements against it already.

I'm starting to respect you more and more, smalltime; with twits like this winner and Chosen running around you seem like the best of the whole lot of them; at least you're willing to meet my opinions and ideas head-on rather than just try to sidestep (like Chosen) them or make a soundbyte and then say "I don't want to talk about it further" like Secret here.

 

[secretasianman]

Vienna - I have never heard of that movement before. Can you give me a link to that? I should probably refrain from saying anything until I've read more, but it doesn't sound like the people behind it are actually Christians - Christians believe that there is a definite truth out there, the message (the truth) exists outside of what people make of it, or what it does for humanity.

Thatjerk - sorry, I'll try to show you the same patience you've shown with me. And yeah, I guess your derisive edge hinted at irrationality, but I suppose it's not as bad as I thought. Also, I didn't want to imply that what you're doing is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation - I'm just a cynic by nature.

well, the O.T. really isn't that bad because the N.T. is there

That's definitely not what I'm trying to say (even though what you mean by "because the NT is *there*" is a bit vague, please explain)

I know that there is a vast spectrum of Christians, ranging from people who don't read the bible and never go the church and believe in God to those fundamentalists who'd like nothing better than to dictate every aspect of life in terms of God. I know that for every truely wacky Christian there are numerous, more reasonable ones. But that doesn't seem to change the fact that atheists and people of other religious bents are still openly discriminated against for not being Christian in all walks of life; I certainly don't hear much about them being stood-up for, unless the ACLU becomes involved.

May I propose to you that Christians have also been slaughtered throughout history and have been persecuted against - if that counts as discrimination. I guess that because this country was set up under the banner of "Christianity" (although it seems that the country hasn't been very faithful to it), you might associate Christians with the majority - but in other parts of the world this is definitely not the case - Christians are very much persecuted and discriminated against.

Don't mistake skepticism for atheism or any other form of non-Christianity; I'm not a skeptic. I'm an atheist, which means I'm not merely skeptical about religion, I whole-heartedly believe that it's a fairy tale. Skepticism means that while you question an idea, you're still open to it. I completely reject Christianity, every last part of it. This isn't a matter of trust; no amount of 'apologism' will make me think "well golly, these Christian folk sure are dandy, so I'll worship their God". The fact that she was merely mistrustful of Christianity further indicates that she was only somewhat skeptical and far from atheist, ergo, she is hardly an example of someone 'finding the light'. Rather, she is an example of a skeptic being taken into the fold after much coaxing and soft words of encouragement.

Woah... it's like you've known her longer than I have. ANyways, "apologetics" is The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines. And no, seeing a buncha *dandy* Christians isn't going to make anyone decide that - it's just there as visible "evidence" in God's favor (right now, I'm trying to make sure that they aren't just a buncha delusional fools, which means I'll have to investigate the Bible and its validity/consistency...). I have to see if there's anything behind it all, if you see what I mean. Anyways, you'd define yourself as a strong atheist, right?

I'm starting to respect you more and more, smalltime; with twits like this winner and Chosen running around you seem like the best of the whole lot of them; at least you're willing to meet my opinions and ideas head-on rather than just try to sidestep (like Chosen) them or make a soundbyte and then say "I don't want to talk about it further" like Secret here.

Who exactly are you referring to? I regret saying that last line, but I'll definitely try to have a *discussion* with you - just keep in mind that I'm not a Christian myself, I don't want to play the defender, I just want to compare objections to Christianity or something like that. Anyways, for the perspective I was talking about:

I've said this before on another post:
Keep in mind that God wanted a meaningful, mature relationship with us.
*************************************************
When Moses led the Israelis to freedom after ~400 years of slavery to the Egyptians, they were little better than savages. These people were B.C., with no culture or sense of higher justice - so much of what we take for granted as "human." God's original laws were very clearly defined, probed deeply into the Israeli's everyday lives (don't eat blood, women's periods are unsanitary - don't think too hard about the two put together), and were a far cry from Jesus's message ("Eye for an eye" is much less challenging than "Turn the other cheek") - but God's intent was to take care of the people, show them how to survive, to clearly define right from wrong, and most importantly: to allow them to have the beginnings of a relationship with God. In their stage of infancy, spiritual and otherwise, the emphasis on RULES and STANDARDS allowed them to have a somewhat childlike relationship: though the child may not understand all the rules the parent sets, the child does them to please the parent. As Israel grew into a complex civilization, they grew spiritually (I don't see exactly how this happened... yet...) - when the time was right, God sent Jesus down to reveal the most perfect "version" - Jesus showed mankind, through his message and the example he set, how to have a mature, meaningful RELATIONSHIP with God.
****************************************************

Hope that helps - I probably forgot to mention something or didn't address something thoroughly enough, tell me if I did.

 

[TruthSeeker]

God is Love.

 

[Xev]

God is Dead.

 

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by ThatJerk
Then why is it necessary to remove one's foreskin to enter into the covenant of God? Circumcision greatly decreases the time it takes for the male to ejaculate, as the head of the penis is far more sensitive without the foreskin covering it. Pleasure is greatly reduced for both partners, particularly for the woman because she simply won't have time to reach orgasm. And we can't forget that when circumcised, it is impossible (or nearly so; I wouldn't know for certain) to masturbate without lubrication.

hmm.. While in the main I am entirely agreed with you on the religious points, ThatJerk, this is a pile of shite. You're obviously not speaking from experience, and your sources seem somewhat misinformed. While it may indeed take less time to ejaculate, a, er... "skilled performer" (lack of linguisitc agility on my part on display here) might actually use this to his advantage, without going into specifics. The masturbation point is, well, laughable. I'm sure you can do better than this from what I've seen so far.

:bugeye: Ignorance is bliss, is that it? You imply that forsaking critical and intelligent thought is the key to happiness. I'll take hellfire first, thanks. At least Satan has the balls to stand up to God's tyranny.

Actually, ThatJerk, he may well be completely correct in this declaration. Ignorance may well be the key to happiness. Personally, I'd agree with you and take the damnation first before submitting to bliss using this method, but you certainly can't claim that intelligence or analytical questioning is ever going to make you happy. You claim that not knowing, but questioning, all aspects of life makes you happier than submitting to religious dogma, and in that I would agree, because this is the path I have also set myself upon. However, claiming that you are always going to be happier when you continue on the path you appear to be on is somewhat questionable. My opinion is that the best you can aim for is contentment, and even that generally requires some form of submission to something, somewhere.

I would probably be quite happy to expound on this for some time, but it is somewhat off topic and my limited net use doesn't lend itself to a long discussion.

Well, I won't be facing God, so that's hardly a worry of mine. What will I have found out? I don't know. What will I have achieved? If I'm lucky, even one Christian will have listened to logic and rational thought and renounced their beliefs. What will I have done? Lived according to my beliefs and given tyranny of thought the finger.

All good, bar one thing. Why convert the christian to atheism? Seems somewhat sadistic to me... take away belief, and by extension some form of contentment or even happiness, and replace it with... this. Think about this for a while, in light of your apparent moral beliefs. Do you think you'd be doing them any favours?

Do you want to know a secret? There is no greater purpose to life. Search all you like for a universal meaning, and you will fail. Rather, search for and create a meaning to your OWN life; do what you like, live free, and don't play too rough. If you decide to create a meaning for yourself through your God, whatever floats your boat, but know that it is a creation of your own mind rather than a universal Meaning.

See my point above. While my own view of organised religion verges on antipathy, I regard many christians, if not most, as being relatively peacable and tolerable people. Certainly, many of them could do with a healthy dose of "live and let live" philosophy, but it the main they don't hurt us all that much. Not only that, they seem quite happy in their belief, or in the very least happier for belief in something beyond their existence to look forward to. My question to you is why you would want to deprive them of this?

...but I suggest considering the fact that your 'eternal life' is nothing more than a security-blanket to help you and other Christians deal with life and the thought of it ending.

Flogging a dead horse, perhaps... but again... what is your motive?

I arrive at ALL of my conclusions through clear, logical, secular and unbiased thinking.

This, I very much doubt. While I have plenty of respect for your aims in attempting to do so, you must acknowledge the fact that many of your decisions, or self-imposed moral guidelines, are the product of prior conditioning. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine which of your decisions involve a conscious choice and which you merely believe to have been. You mentioned your parents being a catalyst for your current way of thinking... ask yourself if you would have been the person you are without their guidance earlier on. Ask yourself how any of your own decisions you have justified to yourself simply to make them fit your own pre-concieved morality.

Might be interesting to have a long involved chat with you someday. Your beliefs in the main I have a tendency to share, but I certainly don't agree with some of your methods.

 

[secretasianman]

This, I very much doubt. While I have plenty of respect for your aims in attempting to do so, you must acknowledge the fact that many of your decisions, or self-imposed moral guidelines, are the product of prior conditioning. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine which of your decisions involve a conscious choice and which you merely believe to have been.

This is basically what I meant by "irrational." I don't mean to offend/start a flamewar, but I think it's important for you not to overestimate yourself. Same goes for everyone, including me.

All good, bar one thing. Why convert the christian to atheism? Seems somewhat sadistic to me... take away belief, and by extension some form of contentment or even happiness, and replace it with... this. Think about this for a while, in light of your apparent moral beliefs. Do you think you'd be doing them any favours?

btw, Squid - although I don't want to discourage your tolerance for Christians, your stance of "aw let them live on in their fantasy worlds" isn't any different from thatjerk's... can you explain to me (a "spiritual journeyman" if you will) how you concluded that Christianity is a crocka shit, or if you just don't care (which would be even worse).

drunk,
- Ed

 

[secretasianman]

Haven't been sleeping well, no more drinking myself to sleep.
And no more staying up late nights to post here... Berkeley is a demanding mistress.

Just wanted to express the sentiment - it's a shame that Christianity was/is caught in the crossfire of conservative hogwash, white supremacy and the modern liberal media. I'm not asking for flames, but I may have gotten myself into some deep shit.

EDIT: btw, Thatjerk, you should try re-evaluating "God is love" in the context of God wanting a relationship with man. And also, can you do me a favor - can you call up some atheists and ask them to explain, here on this thread, why the idea that God created us for love is so "disgusting" or "despicable" (loosely quoting from other threads I've perused)? Thanks

sleepy,
- Ed

 

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by secretasianman
btw, Squid - although I don't want to discourage your tolerance for Christians, your stance of "aw let them live on in their fantasy worlds" isn't any different from thatjerk's...

It appears to me to be different, Secretasianman, in that he shows a desire to "convert" them to atheism while I do not.
If someone has found a means by which to live a happy life, then to me it seems a form of cruelty to take that away from them. The reason I believe this is that I don't feel that my own path will lead to any such thing (although I will never dismiss the possibility that someday it might), and would therefore feel guilty in condemning someone to the same fate when they have found something they feel is better.

While I can't say I'd prefer to be a believer, sometimes the notion of having a life dictated to you and some form of happiness in the afterlife does seem rather attractive. It's a tempting lifestyle, but unfortunately my own ideals or beliefs don't lend themselves easily to submission or surrender to anything at all, let alone a dictatorial god.

can you explain to me (a "spiritual journeyman" if you will) how you concluded that Christianity is a crocka shit, or if you just don't care (which would be even worse).

To be perfectly honest with you I don't really remember. I was not brought up with any form of christianity at all.. I remember my parents sending me to Sunday School for a couple of weeks when I was quite young but I remember voicing objections even at that age and that soon stopped. Since then the subject has rarely come up.

While I engaged in religious discussion frequently when younger, I find these days I have a tendency to, as you say, "not care". Non-profitable discussions no longer interest me as they once did, and quite frankly I see little point in debating the merits or otherwise of religion with believers. I am interested in religion only from a historical or sometimes scholarly point of view.
My tolerance for believers of less objectionable (to me) outlooks is a relatively recent thing, however... until quite recently I was as willing to throw old shoes at them as many others. My thoughts on different topics have led to me re-thinking this approach.

 

[secretasianman]

What I meant was Thatjerk's more active - even if he's only posting on a very one-sided forum. Meeting people would be preferable: he could either convince people of their wrongs, or have someone convince him that he's wrong - I guess you've given up on the possibility of either. Not that I'm *judging* you for the sake of being an asshole, nor am I as old as you are I assume (would you mind telling me)...

Isn't the truth of a religion is more important than its "merits"? Perhaps our different upbringings (and ages) accounts for our different positions, or that I'm more willing to evaluate Christianity (I may have phrased that incorrectly).

My thoughts on different topics have led to me re-thinking this approach.

Can you elaborate? Just curious.

 

[TruthSeeker]

God is Life.

 

[ndrs]

The great teacher TS is back.. With his eternal truth..
How about god is everything..
God=everything
So everytime you see a word God, replace it with "everything".
So now we don't have to use this stupid, confusing, over-used, unspecific term anymore?

 

[EvilPoet]

God is dog spelled backwards.

 

[ndrs]

So.. God is dog's backside!

 

[Vienna]

secretasianman

Vienna - I have never heard of that movement before. Can you give me a link to that? I should probably refrain from saying anything until I've read more, but it doesn't sound like the people behind it are actually Christians - Christians believe that there is a definite truth out there, the message (the truth) exists outside of what people make of it, or what it does for humanity.

Yes, the link to this site
http://www.avoiceinthewilderness.org/index.html

I'm not too sure of what they are offering; a worldwide unity of Christianship or a cult. I would have thought that a worldwide unity would cause problems because of the different ideas within the denominations.

 

[EvilPoet]

Originally posted by Xev
God is Dead.

"God is dead. God remains dead. And
we have killed him." -The Madman

 

[secretasianman]

Vienna - thanks for the link.