If you wouldn't follow Hitler, why follow God?
-
John Fisher wrote: (obviously trollish), Wrong. I was stating a belief I strongly hold. Opening a controversial subject to debate is not the same as trolling. John Fisher wrote: Hitler cared only about himself We never knew Hitler so that line of reasoning is stricken. John Fisher wrote: God loves everybody enough to become a human and die for them. If you would have read my post you would have known that that is one of the common firewall-dodges employed. God didn't "die for us" Hi is supposedly immortal so out of the infinity of time he supposedly existed, his brief stint on this earth which ended in his crudifixion could not have been any more than the tiniest of mosquito bites to him. And if he loved everyone so much - why threaten them with eternal torture? How much did he love people before he got bored shitless with not having a race of intelligent beings to worship him? Sounds to me like the big man got tired of not having "free willed" toys to play with. So he created us for the purpose of worshipping him and if we fail to do so we are tortured forever. Sorry, but there is no way I could ever become enough of a hypocrite to worship a god like that. John Fisher wrote: God gives everyone a chance to make their own choice, explaining what the results will be, so they can make it properly. "I am a loving kidnapper. You have free will, but if you chose to run away then I will shoot you in the lower groin and kick you in the face until you die. And then I will resurrect you and do it all over agin until I get bored. So you had better use your free will to love me more than you love your children and parents." Yeah - right. John Fisher wrote: There are a multitude of other things that you are either ignoring or don't quite understand, but from the tone of your post, you probably don't want to. I've read it all. I have been fascinated by theology since the age of around 12. I have always been interested in why so many Christians do un-Christian things and live entire lifestyles that are at odds with the documentation that shipped with Xtianity 1.0 How about you? Are you a "sinner"? Of course you are. Now for the hard question - do you actively try your hardest - with every ounce of your being, intellect and emotion to simply not do those things that you know are wrong? Or do you use cop-out number 445-A: We ar
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Wrong. I was stating a belief I strongly hold. Opening a controversial subject to debate is not the same as trolling. I guess that depends upon your viewpoint. Now that you've stated that it isn't, then I'll believe it wasn't. :) Terry O`Nolley wrote: We never knew Hitler so that line of reasoning is stricken. You didn't quote my whole sentence. Also, this line of reasoning is not stricken -- you can easily see much of his thinking by the way he treated those he deemed "inferior". Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you would have read my post you would have known that that is one of the common firewall-dodges employed. I read about halfway, and did see that. Believing the truth is not a "firewall-dodge" any more than your own statement is a dodge to avoid dealing with my assertion. Terry O`Nolley wrote: God didn't "die for us" Yes "God" continued to exist, but the human that he became did die. This was no light matter. Whether you care about a "never to live again" idea or not, He went through incredible spiritual and physical torture for us -- with the direct goal of keeping us OUT of the torture you refer to. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I am a loving kidnapper.... It's rather obvious that you have animosity toward the idea of a loving God. I'm not sure why, but you can't focus only on one side of God's character and get an accurate understanding, no matter how well you think you've studied theology. God gives you a choice: A. Life on earth with a little extra struggle living as He asks results in more awesome rewards than any human can imagine. B. Life on earth lived however you want, without caring about God's will results in you getting exactly what you wanted -- being separate from God. (Right now, you are experiencing the benefits of God's mercy. When you die without choosing to be with Him forever, that's what get -- complete separation from God and the benefits He wants to give.) Terry O`Nolley wrote: I've read it all That's nearly impossible, so I doubt it. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Now for the hard question - do you actively try your hardest ... Most of the time, yes. Other times I fail. Sinning again and asking for God's forgiveness is no "cop-out". If you had read as much as you say, you'd understand that. (Some people do use it as a
-
How the hell do you know there really isn't a being of infinite power who punishes you for all eternity for not abiding by "his" will? (BTW, the bible dosn't actually say you "go to hell" just that you don't get to go to heaven. The concept of hell worked its way into chrisianity from the Greeks not from Jesus.) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: BTW, the bible dosn't actually say you "go to hell" just that you don't get to go to heaven. The concept of hell worked its way into chrisianity from the Greeks not from Jesus If you sin, your name will not be in the book of life. If your name is not in the book of life, you will be cast into hell. Revelation 20.12-15:
20.12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God,
and the books were opened. And another book was opened which
is of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things that
were written in the books according to their works.13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and
hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were
judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and
hell were cast in the lake of fire. This is the second death,
15 and whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was
cast into the lake of fire.Wohoo! Cheerful stuff isn't it? And you don't see any problems with having religion and power intermixed. If this isn't a tool to push a moral agenda, then I don't know what is. But I guess it's ok if the moral is your own. -- Booohoo!
-
What sort of mewling drone would ever agree to follow a god who was so cruel, so vain as to demand abject worship from a bunch of human beings and send them to an eternal torture chamber if they don't kiss his ass hard enough?!?!?!? It is pathetic and every time I see a supposedly intelligent human being subscribe to those tenents I get the same sick feeling I do when I realize I have been inadvertantly conversing with a racist or a misogynist or a homophobe. My skin crawls and I just want to leave the scene. The mindset used to willingly follow a god who will torture you forever if you don't kiss his ass is exactly the same mindset as the nazis. They feel that "well, since God (or Hitler) is in charge and He (or he) makes the rules then I need to follow them. And since God (or Hitler) is all powerful, anything I do to follow Him (him) is self-defined as being the right thing to do. Therefore, I can slough off my innate human morality and follow this new set of rules without guilt or shame. You can see the firewalls installed throughout the religion designed to prevent members from realizing there adherrance to the religion is fundamentally immoral: 1) Our god is a loving god (ignores the fact that you will be tortured forever for not kissing his ass) 2) He works in mysterious ways (deftly dodging the obvious "If god is so loving, why allow war?) 3) He sent his own son to suffer for our sins (utter BS - how can an immortal god actually suffer? For an immortal being, a few hours on a cross would be like me sticking my finger with a pin to see what it felt like) If they would at least admit that they were brain-washed by equally cowed lemming parents then I could give them a little respect. Why can't they realize that spirituality can be non-denominational? Why can't they understand that a common morality exists outside of religion? What flaw exists in the human psyche that allows them to believe in fairy tales? Are people really so weak that they can't accept their approaching deaths as simply the end of their brief fling on this wacky world? Wouldn't their energies be better spent living, loving, laughing and doing all of the "immoral" things that bring enjoyment and cause no harm? Religion is just a lifelong hypno-therapy session designed to ease the anxiety of death. I guess having dullard cow-eyed sheep dutifully filling the coffers of the churches is preferable to mobs of screaming weaklings whining about their looming deaths but I like to think that humanity, as whole, is r
Trolling again, Terry ? I'm confused. Nothing you have to say relates to any religion I know of, although some comments seem to refer to a religion that is very loosely based on Christianity. What religion is it that's annoyed you so ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Stan Shannon wrote: BTW, the bible dosn't actually say you "go to hell" just that you don't get to go to heaven. The concept of hell worked its way into chrisianity from the Greeks not from Jesus If you sin, your name will not be in the book of life. If your name is not in the book of life, you will be cast into hell. Revelation 20.12-15:
20.12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God,
and the books were opened. And another book was opened which
is of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things that
were written in the books according to their works.13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and
hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were
judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and
hell were cast in the lake of fire. This is the second death,
15 and whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was
cast into the lake of fire.Wohoo! Cheerful stuff isn't it? And you don't see any problems with having religion and power intermixed. If this isn't a tool to push a moral agenda, then I don't know what is. But I guess it's ok if the moral is your own. -- Booohoo!
The book of Revelation is entirely a book of word pictures. 'heaven' in this book is related variously as being given a name that no-one knows, and being turned into a stone pillar in a big temple, amongst other things. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Stan Shannon wrote: BTW, the bible dosn't actually say you "go to hell" just that you don't get to go to heaven. The concept of hell worked its way into chrisianity from the Greeks not from Jesus If you sin, your name will not be in the book of life. If your name is not in the book of life, you will be cast into hell. Revelation 20.12-15:
20.12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God,
and the books were opened. And another book was opened which
is of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things that
were written in the books according to their works.13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and
hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were
judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and
hell were cast in the lake of fire. This is the second death,
15 and whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was
cast into the lake of fire.Wohoo! Cheerful stuff isn't it? And you don't see any problems with having religion and power intermixed. If this isn't a tool to push a moral agenda, then I don't know what is. But I guess it's ok if the moral is your own. -- Booohoo!
Well, ok, I'm certainly no bible scholar! :~ I think what I was referring to was the fact that concepts of hell do not appear in the old testament and Jesus never mentioned it explicitely (I think). It is not until the religion becomes more Europeanized that the fire and brimestone stuff starts creeping in. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: And you don't see any problems with having religion and power intermixed. I'm no defender of religion, being more anthiest than not myself. However, I've never said anything that would make one think that religion and politics should be mixed. I adamently do not belive that. I simple belive that politics should go a step further and not inhibit free exercise of religion - in the voting booth or elsewhere. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If this isn't a tool to push a moral agenda, then I don't know what is. But I guess it's ok if the moral is your own. yes, but that is only imaginary power. Secularism is back up by real power - the power of the state. Religion isn't - only by the power of those who believe in it. At least in my country, religion has helped more than it has hurt so I see no reason to make an enemy out of it. Religoin is not the enemy, secularism is, as it is the only moral othodoxy actively trying to shove its agenda down my throat with the blessing of the state. I know of no religion in the US that is trying to do that. (Well, Islam, to some small extent, but we're taking care of that) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
What sort of mewling drone would ever agree to follow a god who was so cruel, so vain as to demand abject worship from a bunch of human beings and send them to an eternal torture chamber if they don't kiss his ass hard enough?!?!?!? It is pathetic and every time I see a supposedly intelligent human being subscribe to those tenents I get the same sick feeling I do when I realize I have been inadvertantly conversing with a racist or a misogynist or a homophobe. My skin crawls and I just want to leave the scene. The mindset used to willingly follow a god who will torture you forever if you don't kiss his ass is exactly the same mindset as the nazis. They feel that "well, since God (or Hitler) is in charge and He (or he) makes the rules then I need to follow them. And since God (or Hitler) is all powerful, anything I do to follow Him (him) is self-defined as being the right thing to do. Therefore, I can slough off my innate human morality and follow this new set of rules without guilt or shame. You can see the firewalls installed throughout the religion designed to prevent members from realizing there adherrance to the religion is fundamentally immoral: 1) Our god is a loving god (ignores the fact that you will be tortured forever for not kissing his ass) 2) He works in mysterious ways (deftly dodging the obvious "If god is so loving, why allow war?) 3) He sent his own son to suffer for our sins (utter BS - how can an immortal god actually suffer? For an immortal being, a few hours on a cross would be like me sticking my finger with a pin to see what it felt like) If they would at least admit that they were brain-washed by equally cowed lemming parents then I could give them a little respect. Why can't they realize that spirituality can be non-denominational? Why can't they understand that a common morality exists outside of religion? What flaw exists in the human psyche that allows them to believe in fairy tales? Are people really so weak that they can't accept their approaching deaths as simply the end of their brief fling on this wacky world? Wouldn't their energies be better spent living, loving, laughing and doing all of the "immoral" things that bring enjoyment and cause no harm? Religion is just a lifelong hypno-therapy session designed to ease the anxiety of death. I guess having dullard cow-eyed sheep dutifully filling the coffers of the churches is preferable to mobs of screaming weaklings whining about their looming deaths but I like to think that humanity, as whole, is r
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Why can't they realize that spirituality can be non-denominational? People tend to group themselves, they don't acutally understand the teaching of Christianity love one another, and it becomes a i'm better than you type of situation. Terry O`Nolley wrote: mewling drone would ever agree to follow a god who was so cruel Terry O`Nolley wrote: intelligent human being subscribe to those tenents I get the same sick feeling Terry O`Nolley wrote: What flaw exists in the human psyche that allows them to believe in fairy tales? I think you answered your own question there. -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
-
Ahh. I don't think you can apply logic, at least not exclusively, when trying to figure out people's motivations regarding religion. Also, I don't think you can pinpoint a static system of belief as most people are constantly updating their beliefs based on experience. What I believe to be the truth, some might think is totally whacked out, and others may completely agree with me. Either way, it really doesn't matter, because my religion is my own personal compass and is only useful relative to my life, because nobody else has my point of view. BW The Biggest Loser
"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun"Quite true. But I am merely trying to point out that if I joined the Flat-Earth Society and told everyone I was a Flat-Earth Society member and that I believed in the tenents of the Flat-Earth Society but I *really* thought the earth was round and that all of that silly Flat-Earth code of beliefs was really a metaphor and that I could still be a Flat-Earther even though i didn't really believe what it stood for then that would make me a hypocrite. If I was honest I would say, I can't become a memebr of the flat earth society (ie Roman Catholic, 7th day adventist, Lutheran, etc.) because I fundamentally disagree with some of its principals.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Wrong. I was stating a belief I strongly hold. Opening a controversial subject to debate is not the same as trolling. I guess that depends upon your viewpoint. Now that you've stated that it isn't, then I'll believe it wasn't. :) Terry O`Nolley wrote: We never knew Hitler so that line of reasoning is stricken. You didn't quote my whole sentence. Also, this line of reasoning is not stricken -- you can easily see much of his thinking by the way he treated those he deemed "inferior". Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you would have read my post you would have known that that is one of the common firewall-dodges employed. I read about halfway, and did see that. Believing the truth is not a "firewall-dodge" any more than your own statement is a dodge to avoid dealing with my assertion. Terry O`Nolley wrote: God didn't "die for us" Yes "God" continued to exist, but the human that he became did die. This was no light matter. Whether you care about a "never to live again" idea or not, He went through incredible spiritual and physical torture for us -- with the direct goal of keeping us OUT of the torture you refer to. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I am a loving kidnapper.... It's rather obvious that you have animosity toward the idea of a loving God. I'm not sure why, but you can't focus only on one side of God's character and get an accurate understanding, no matter how well you think you've studied theology. God gives you a choice: A. Life on earth with a little extra struggle living as He asks results in more awesome rewards than any human can imagine. B. Life on earth lived however you want, without caring about God's will results in you getting exactly what you wanted -- being separate from God. (Right now, you are experiencing the benefits of God's mercy. When you die without choosing to be with Him forever, that's what get -- complete separation from God and the benefits He wants to give.) Terry O`Nolley wrote: I've read it all That's nearly impossible, so I doubt it. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Now for the hard question - do you actively try your hardest ... Most of the time, yes. Other times I fail. Sinning again and asking for God's forgiveness is no "cop-out". If you had read as much as you say, you'd understand that. (Some people do use it as a
John Fisher wrote: It's rather obvious that you have animosity toward the idea of a loving God. I'm not sure why, but you can't focus only on one side of God's character and get an accurate understanding, no matter how well you think you've studied theology. Because no loving entity would torture someone forever. I couldn't rape enough nuns in a lifetime to warrant eternal torture. John Fisher wrote: you can easily see much of his thinking by the way he treated those he deemed "inferior". It was a lot better than torturing for all eternity everyone who doesn't worship him with abject veneration. John Fisher wrote: Most of the time, yes. Other times I fail. Sinning again and asking for God's forgiveness is no "cop-out". If you had read as much as you say, you'd understand that. (Some people do use it as a cop-out, though. They basically never try to please God, and just want him to give them everything they want, like some big genie in a bottle.) I respect that. You believe enough to actually not do things that any normal person would want to do (what with their being human all). The "some people" you refer to are among those I label as hypocrites. John Fisher wrote: If Jesus never did rise from the dead, and the Bible isn't true, then Christians are among the most miserable people anywhere I agree with you on this one. It is just that most of them may not realize it. John Fisher wrote: God gives you a choice: A. Life on earth with a little extra struggle living as He asks results in more awesome rewards than any human can imagine. B. Life on earth lived however you want, without caring about God's will results in you getting exactly what you wanted -- being separate from God. (Right now, you are experiencing the benefits of God's mercy. When you die without choosing to be with Him forever, that's what get -- complete separation from God and the benefits He wants to give.) If that is all hell is - an eternal death with no awareness rather than eternal torment then I would retract my objection to Christianity based on the cruelty of god.
-
Well, ok, I'm certainly no bible scholar! :~ I think what I was referring to was the fact that concepts of hell do not appear in the old testament and Jesus never mentioned it explicitely (I think). It is not until the religion becomes more Europeanized that the fire and brimestone stuff starts creeping in. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: And you don't see any problems with having religion and power intermixed. I'm no defender of religion, being more anthiest than not myself. However, I've never said anything that would make one think that religion and politics should be mixed. I adamently do not belive that. I simple belive that politics should go a step further and not inhibit free exercise of religion - in the voting booth or elsewhere. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If this isn't a tool to push a moral agenda, then I don't know what is. But I guess it's ok if the moral is your own. yes, but that is only imaginary power. Secularism is back up by real power - the power of the state. Religion isn't - only by the power of those who believe in it. At least in my country, religion has helped more than it has hurt so I see no reason to make an enemy out of it. Religoin is not the enemy, secularism is, as it is the only moral othodoxy actively trying to shove its agenda down my throat with the blessing of the state. I know of no religion in the US that is trying to do that. (Well, Islam, to some small extent, but we're taking care of that) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, ok, I'm certainly no bible scholar! You got that right. Stan Shannon wrote: Jesus never mentioned it explicitely (I think). It is not until the religion becomes more Europeanized that the fire and brimestone stuff starts creeping in. Some quotes: Mt 5:22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ must stand trial in the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire in hell. Mt 5:29 “If your right eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. Your eye is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. Mt 5:30 “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. Your hand is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to go into hell. Mt 7:13 “Enter God’s kingdom through the narrow gate. The gate is large and the road is wide that lead to death and hell. Many people go that way. Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but can’t kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt 16:18 Here is what I tell you. You are Peter. On this rock I will build my church. The gates of hell will not be strong enough to destroy it. Mt 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It would be better for you to enter the kingdom of heaven with only one hand or one foot than to go into hell with two hands and two feet. In hell the fire burns forever. Mt 18:9 If your eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. It would be better for you to enter the kingdom of heaven with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. Lk 12:5 I will show you whom you should be afraid of. Be afraid of the One who can kill the body and also has the power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, be afraid of him. Lk 16:23 In hell, the rich man was suffering terribly. He looked up and saw Abraham far away. Lazarus was by his side. Stan Shannon wrote: Religoin is not the enemy, secularism is, as it is the only moral othodoxy actively trying to shove its agenda down my throat with the blessing of the state. I know of no religion in the US that is trying to do that. I can only assume that you don't read the newspapers. The religious right in the
-
What sort of mewling drone would ever agree to follow a god who was so cruel, so vain as to demand abject worship from a bunch of human beings and send them to an eternal torture chamber if they don't kiss his ass hard enough?!?!?!? It is pathetic and every time I see a supposedly intelligent human being subscribe to those tenents I get the same sick feeling I do when I realize I have been inadvertantly conversing with a racist or a misogynist or a homophobe. My skin crawls and I just want to leave the scene. The mindset used to willingly follow a god who will torture you forever if you don't kiss his ass is exactly the same mindset as the nazis. They feel that "well, since God (or Hitler) is in charge and He (or he) makes the rules then I need to follow them. And since God (or Hitler) is all powerful, anything I do to follow Him (him) is self-defined as being the right thing to do. Therefore, I can slough off my innate human morality and follow this new set of rules without guilt or shame. You can see the firewalls installed throughout the religion designed to prevent members from realizing there adherrance to the religion is fundamentally immoral: 1) Our god is a loving god (ignores the fact that you will be tortured forever for not kissing his ass) 2) He works in mysterious ways (deftly dodging the obvious "If god is so loving, why allow war?) 3) He sent his own son to suffer for our sins (utter BS - how can an immortal god actually suffer? For an immortal being, a few hours on a cross would be like me sticking my finger with a pin to see what it felt like) If they would at least admit that they were brain-washed by equally cowed lemming parents then I could give them a little respect. Why can't they realize that spirituality can be non-denominational? Why can't they understand that a common morality exists outside of religion? What flaw exists in the human psyche that allows them to believe in fairy tales? Are people really so weak that they can't accept their approaching deaths as simply the end of their brief fling on this wacky world? Wouldn't their energies be better spent living, loving, laughing and doing all of the "immoral" things that bring enjoyment and cause no harm? Religion is just a lifelong hypno-therapy session designed to ease the anxiety of death. I guess having dullard cow-eyed sheep dutifully filling the coffers of the churches is preferable to mobs of screaming weaklings whining about their looming deaths but I like to think that humanity, as whole, is r
I am in agreement with most of what you say. I think you have punctured a lot of nonsense very effectively. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
To summarize your post: * Deities are brain ghost terrorists. * Believers are victims of terrorism, suffering the Stockholm syndrome. Am I close? -- Booohoo!
More like: *Deities are baby-pacifiers worn to ease the teething pains of self-awareness *Believers are people who haven't realized their adult teeth have all grown in
-
Wow, a straight jump through the clutter to the core of Godwin's Law. Impressive, Terry! :) fwiw, I agree wholeheartedly with the subject of your post, if not the tone. You got my 5.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
:) All roads lead to Rome......
-
How the hell do you know there really isn't a being of infinite power who punishes you for all eternity for not abiding by "his" will? (BTW, the bible dosn't actually say you "go to hell" just that you don't get to go to heaven. The concept of hell worked its way into chrisianity from the Greeks not from Jesus.) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
I don't. I just refuse to worship a god that operates under the priciples as laid out in Christian dogma. I have enough principles and intestinal fortitude to refuse to worship a god that doesn't meet my standard of behaviour. Just because my parents, that dude on TV and the pretty cheerleader say he is the ONE TRUE GOD won't make me follow him if I disagree with the basic principles. Any religion that follows a god who demands this, this and that tells me that the god in question (there are hundreds to choose from) is a human invention. Sure, you can use the "God works in mysterious ways" dodge, but that isn't enough for me. I am more than ready to believe a god or other force exists. But I also do not believe that it or he or she has any interest in the goings on among humans or has a place reserved for us on the other side. An anthropomorphic god is a human invention used as baby-pacifier for people too frightened to accept their inevitable demise. Buddhism has offered me the only sensible framework I have yet found: 4 Noble Truths: * Live is suffering * The cause of suffering is unfulfilled desire * To remove the suffering you need to remove your desires by attaining enlightenment * To attain enlightenment, you follow the 8-fold path, which consists of: Right understanding Right attitude Right communication Right action Right livlihood Right effort Right mindfullness Right concentration If you miss it this time around, you will be reincarnated. Attaining enlightenment is the end of the cycle of reincarnation and existence on another plane of being with full awareness at a non-physical level.
-
Quite true. But I am merely trying to point out that if I joined the Flat-Earth Society and told everyone I was a Flat-Earth Society member and that I believed in the tenents of the Flat-Earth Society but I *really* thought the earth was round and that all of that silly Flat-Earth code of beliefs was really a metaphor and that I could still be a Flat-Earther even though i didn't really believe what it stood for then that would make me a hypocrite. If I was honest I would say, I can't become a memebr of the flat earth society (ie Roman Catholic, 7th day adventist, Lutheran, etc.) because I fundamentally disagree with some of its principals.
No doubt it would great if everyone would portray themselves accurately and honestly. I think there are a number of reasons behind this apparently hypocritical behaviour. Sometimes people go to church for purely social reasons, not spiritual ones. Those going for spiritual reasons, I think, often times get enough "mystery" out of simply going to church, and so they overlook the fact that they don't really understand all the teachings let alone agree with all of them. Another aspect is that people simply do not want to take the time to shop around and understand all their options. The church/temple/whatever they go to fulfills their needs well enough so they leave it alone. It's just not a priority. The issue I guess you have is that these people then go on with the mob proclaiming this or that is immoral or should be illegal because Zeus said so. Well, we humans love to ride on whatever the current wave is you know. It gives us something to do between meals. BW The Biggest Loser
"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun" -
John Fisher wrote: It's rather obvious that you have animosity toward the idea of a loving God. I'm not sure why, but you can't focus only on one side of God's character and get an accurate understanding, no matter how well you think you've studied theology. Because no loving entity would torture someone forever. I couldn't rape enough nuns in a lifetime to warrant eternal torture. John Fisher wrote: you can easily see much of his thinking by the way he treated those he deemed "inferior". It was a lot better than torturing for all eternity everyone who doesn't worship him with abject veneration. John Fisher wrote: Most of the time, yes. Other times I fail. Sinning again and asking for God's forgiveness is no "cop-out". If you had read as much as you say, you'd understand that. (Some people do use it as a cop-out, though. They basically never try to please God, and just want him to give them everything they want, like some big genie in a bottle.) I respect that. You believe enough to actually not do things that any normal person would want to do (what with their being human all). The "some people" you refer to are among those I label as hypocrites. John Fisher wrote: If Jesus never did rise from the dead, and the Bible isn't true, then Christians are among the most miserable people anywhere I agree with you on this one. It is just that most of them may not realize it. John Fisher wrote: God gives you a choice: A. Life on earth with a little extra struggle living as He asks results in more awesome rewards than any human can imagine. B. Life on earth lived however you want, without caring about God's will results in you getting exactly what you wanted -- being separate from God. (Right now, you are experiencing the benefits of God's mercy. When you die without choosing to be with Him forever, that's what get -- complete separation from God and the benefits He wants to give.) If that is all hell is - an eternal death with no awareness rather than eternal torment then I would retract my objection to Christianity based on the cruelty of god.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I respect that. You believe enough to actually not do things that any normal person would want to do (what with their being human all). The "some people" you refer to are among those I label as hypocrites. Thanks. I also suspect that the majority of people labelling themselves as Christians are not truly Christian. (A few Bible verses say as much, but don't indicate "majority" verses "many".) Terry O`Nolley wrote: If that is all hell is - an eternal death with no awareness rather than eternal torment then I would retract my objection to Christianity based on the cruelty of god. I would personally wish that eternal torment didn't exist, but I am not willing to read my wishes into what the Bible says. As I read it, it looks clear that they will be punished forever. However, other Christians (and I believe some of them are true Christians) read those passages and still think that it can be understood without unending hell. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Because no loving entity would torture someone forever. I couldn't rape enough nuns in a lifetime to warrant eternal torture. This is obviously the crux of your position. You firmly believe that you couldn't sin enough to earn eternal torture, so God can't honestly be loving if He does put people in Hell forever. You have a few assumptions to deal with before a discussion on this could really progress. (You'll need to deal with my answers using the assumption that God exists as described in the Bible.) 1) Assume that Terry's opinion of the "badness" of sin is accurate. 2) Assume that God's love is His primary attribute, or at least outweighs the characteristics that lead to judgment. In reference to #1, you have to ask, "Who makes the rules?" Are you in a position of authority to tell God how bad things are? No. Also, How great a distance is there between sinless perfection and imperfection? There really is an infinite distance. Once you have sinned, you can never be perfect until you are completely remade. God says over and over in the Bible that sin is antithetical to Himself. He is holy -- and that is His primary attribute, not love. The consequence is that someone who wants to keep his sin cannot be in a good relationship with God. People who hang onto their sin until death must be punished. A multitude of infinitely offensive sins can be measured to require an eternal punishment. In reference to #2. Reading the Bible,
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I respect that. You believe enough to actually not do things that any normal person would want to do (what with their being human all). The "some people" you refer to are among those I label as hypocrites. Thanks. I also suspect that the majority of people labelling themselves as Christians are not truly Christian. (A few Bible verses say as much, but don't indicate "majority" verses "many".) Terry O`Nolley wrote: If that is all hell is - an eternal death with no awareness rather than eternal torment then I would retract my objection to Christianity based on the cruelty of god. I would personally wish that eternal torment didn't exist, but I am not willing to read my wishes into what the Bible says. As I read it, it looks clear that they will be punished forever. However, other Christians (and I believe some of them are true Christians) read those passages and still think that it can be understood without unending hell. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Because no loving entity would torture someone forever. I couldn't rape enough nuns in a lifetime to warrant eternal torture. This is obviously the crux of your position. You firmly believe that you couldn't sin enough to earn eternal torture, so God can't honestly be loving if He does put people in Hell forever. You have a few assumptions to deal with before a discussion on this could really progress. (You'll need to deal with my answers using the assumption that God exists as described in the Bible.) 1) Assume that Terry's opinion of the "badness" of sin is accurate. 2) Assume that God's love is His primary attribute, or at least outweighs the characteristics that lead to judgment. In reference to #1, you have to ask, "Who makes the rules?" Are you in a position of authority to tell God how bad things are? No. Also, How great a distance is there between sinless perfection and imperfection? There really is an infinite distance. Once you have sinned, you can never be perfect until you are completely remade. God says over and over in the Bible that sin is antithetical to Himself. He is holy -- and that is His primary attribute, not love. The consequence is that someone who wants to keep his sin cannot be in a good relationship with God. People who hang onto their sin until death must be punished. A multitude of infinitely offensive sins can be measured to require an eternal punishment. In reference to #2. Reading the Bible,
John Fisher wrote: In reference to #1, you have to ask, "Who makes the rules?" Are you in a position of authority to tell God how bad things are? No......... The consequence is that someone who wants to keep his sin cannot be in a good relationship with God. People who hang onto their sin until death must be punished This tells us that God decides how bad to punish something. It also says that any sin held onto will cause eternal torture. From the New Testament:
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Matthew 10:37
John 15:10So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. If you can't make yourself do this, then you will tortured forever. I refuse to worship such a god. I would be a hypocrite or a total idiot (because only an idiot would stare eternal torture in the face and blow it off) if I believed in that god but did not spend my ENTIRE LIFE trying to love him more than my own family. Do you do this? Or do you just go to church, try to follow the 10 Commandments and never do any work on SUnday, etc, etc? John Fisher wrote: Sin is not allowed. However, His love worked a way for the sin to be adequately punished without sending all of us to hell. That's why Jesus had to die for us. Without sin being paid for, we would never be allowed into heaven. Those who accept the payment and avoid sin benefit from that payment and are made perfect by God after death. This is the crux of Christianity. I understand this. I mean it was written by someboday after all so it must be true. I am a sort of New Ager. I think that if there is a god, he is not interested with us as individuals but he may be interested in us as a whole. Perhaps the Old Testament came at the time when it was needed and helped shepard people along until Jesus' birth. Jesus' sacrifice came at the time when humanity was ready to again advance. The "second coming" will not be as described in Revaltion or anything like that - it would be another socially evolutionary mindset shift.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Why can't they realize that spirituality can be non-denominational? People tend to group themselves, they don't acutally understand the teaching of Christianity love one another, and it becomes a i'm better than you type of situation. Terry O`Nolley wrote: mewling drone would ever agree to follow a god who was so cruel Terry O`Nolley wrote: intelligent human being subscribe to those tenents I get the same sick feeling Terry O`Nolley wrote: What flaw exists in the human psyche that allows them to believe in fairy tales? I think you answered your own question there. -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: I think you answered your own question there. You mean that because I am offput by people who willingly follow a god that will torture you forever if you don't love him more than your own family I believe in fairy tales?
-
John Fisher wrote: In reference to #1, you have to ask, "Who makes the rules?" Are you in a position of authority to tell God how bad things are? No......... The consequence is that someone who wants to keep his sin cannot be in a good relationship with God. People who hang onto their sin until death must be punished This tells us that God decides how bad to punish something. It also says that any sin held onto will cause eternal torture. From the New Testament:
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Matthew 10:37
John 15:10So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. If you can't make yourself do this, then you will tortured forever. I refuse to worship such a god. I would be a hypocrite or a total idiot (because only an idiot would stare eternal torture in the face and blow it off) if I believed in that god but did not spend my ENTIRE LIFE trying to love him more than my own family. Do you do this? Or do you just go to church, try to follow the 10 Commandments and never do any work on SUnday, etc, etc? John Fisher wrote: Sin is not allowed. However, His love worked a way for the sin to be adequately punished without sending all of us to hell. That's why Jesus had to die for us. Without sin being paid for, we would never be allowed into heaven. Those who accept the payment and avoid sin benefit from that payment and are made perfect by God after death. This is the crux of Christianity. I understand this. I mean it was written by someboday after all so it must be true. I am a sort of New Ager. I think that if there is a god, he is not interested with us as individuals but he may be interested in us as a whole. Perhaps the Old Testament came at the time when it was needed and helped shepard people along until Jesus' birth. Jesus' sacrifice came at the time when humanity was ready to again advance. The "second coming" will not be as described in Revaltion or anything like that - it would be another socially evolutionary mindset shift.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I refuse to worship such a god. Why? You obviously believe that loving your family and children is a good thing. Why not love the God who created you, gives you life, and offers to forgive you of your sin, then make eternity even better than anything you can imagine on earth? Other portions of the Bible even make it clear that loving God properly increases your ability to love and love for your family. Again, it appears that you are arguing with God about what constitutes something bad enough to spend an eternity in hell. What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? Opinions don't count, because God has the power and authority for the decision, and you don't. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
What sort of mewling drone would ever agree to follow a god who was so cruel, so vain as to demand abject worship from a bunch of human beings and send them to an eternal torture chamber if they don't kiss his ass hard enough?!?!?!? It is pathetic and every time I see a supposedly intelligent human being subscribe to those tenents I get the same sick feeling I do when I realize I have been inadvertantly conversing with a racist or a misogynist or a homophobe. My skin crawls and I just want to leave the scene. The mindset used to willingly follow a god who will torture you forever if you don't kiss his ass is exactly the same mindset as the nazis. They feel that "well, since God (or Hitler) is in charge and He (or he) makes the rules then I need to follow them. And since God (or Hitler) is all powerful, anything I do to follow Him (him) is self-defined as being the right thing to do. Therefore, I can slough off my innate human morality and follow this new set of rules without guilt or shame. You can see the firewalls installed throughout the religion designed to prevent members from realizing there adherrance to the religion is fundamentally immoral: 1) Our god is a loving god (ignores the fact that you will be tortured forever for not kissing his ass) 2) He works in mysterious ways (deftly dodging the obvious "If god is so loving, why allow war?) 3) He sent his own son to suffer for our sins (utter BS - how can an immortal god actually suffer? For an immortal being, a few hours on a cross would be like me sticking my finger with a pin to see what it felt like) If they would at least admit that they were brain-washed by equally cowed lemming parents then I could give them a little respect. Why can't they realize that spirituality can be non-denominational? Why can't they understand that a common morality exists outside of religion? What flaw exists in the human psyche that allows them to believe in fairy tales? Are people really so weak that they can't accept their approaching deaths as simply the end of their brief fling on this wacky world? Wouldn't their energies be better spent living, loving, laughing and doing all of the "immoral" things that bring enjoyment and cause no harm? Religion is just a lifelong hypno-therapy session designed to ease the anxiety of death. I guess having dullard cow-eyed sheep dutifully filling the coffers of the churches is preferable to mobs of screaming weaklings whining about their looming deaths but I like to think that humanity, as whole, is r
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, ok, I'm certainly no bible scholar! You got that right. Stan Shannon wrote: Jesus never mentioned it explicitely (I think). It is not until the religion becomes more Europeanized that the fire and brimestone stuff starts creeping in. Some quotes: Mt 5:22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ must stand trial in the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire in hell. Mt 5:29 “If your right eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. Your eye is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. Mt 5:30 “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. Your hand is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to go into hell. Mt 7:13 “Enter God’s kingdom through the narrow gate. The gate is large and the road is wide that lead to death and hell. Many people go that way. Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but can’t kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt 16:18 Here is what I tell you. You are Peter. On this rock I will build my church. The gates of hell will not be strong enough to destroy it. Mt 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It would be better for you to enter the kingdom of heaven with only one hand or one foot than to go into hell with two hands and two feet. In hell the fire burns forever. Mt 18:9 If your eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. It would be better for you to enter the kingdom of heaven with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. Lk 12:5 I will show you whom you should be afraid of. Be afraid of the One who can kill the body and also has the power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, be afraid of him. Lk 16:23 In hell, the rich man was suffering terribly. He looked up and saw Abraham far away. Lazarus was by his side. Stan Shannon wrote: Religoin is not the enemy, secularism is, as it is the only moral othodoxy actively trying to shove its agenda down my throat with the blessing of the state. I know of no religion in the US that is trying to do that. I can only assume that you don't read the newspapers. The religious right in the
Well damn. So I guess I'm going to burn in hell. I knew I should have read the bible... :~ John Carson wrote: I can only assume that you don't read the newspapers. The religious right in the US is constantly attempting to use the authority of the state in support of their religiously-based morality. You apparently don't read statutes either since many existing laws already do that. No they aren't. They are using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country. Would you even take that away from them? I just don't get you guys. When the state overtly attackes religion at every opportunity you are happy as larks. When people who are religious try to act democratically to fight back you get entirely bent out of shape. The only way that makes sense is if you are overtly trying to destroy religion - beginning with Christianity. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."