Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[pianowolfi]

Tausend dank, mein herr!

Actually, I only hopped on this thread because I have this miserable chest cold and I played hooky from work today.  To kill time, I picked on Christianity.  Forgive me.  It was either that or pick on thal. 

hee hee I hope you feel better soon

[morningstar]

Oh. Well you are forgiven then, that's a pretty good choice lol

[lostinidlewonder]

Christianity is not so much a set of rituals or daily routines. Jesus laughed at those who mindlessly followed rituals without even knowing what they where doing. People would do certain ceremonies and believe that everything would be right and well after it, without even thinking about what they where doing.

So folding your hands together in prayer, or the Catholics how they do that cross thing, or having a cross around your neck, or whatever, these are all pagan rituals which have nothing to do with Christianity. There is no need to pray with your hands folded or kneeling or eyes closed. What happens if you have no arms? Or legs, or your eyelids are missing? Is it impossible to pray then? So it is useless to follow rituals mindlessly and believe that you are a Christian by doing so. Do you pray before your meal just because you should do it, or are you really thankful that you have food so much so that it inspires you to pray and give thanks? Attending Church once a week mindlessly is also something people do and believe they are Christian.

It however does not matter which denomination you go to for salvation. When there are people who are down and out in life the support you should get from any Christian denomination should help a great deal. So long the church believes that everyone is their brother and sister, despite religion, sex, sexual preference, ethnicity etc.

At the lowest times of our life the fine details and differences of denominations doesn't make a difference. The support, the love, the feeling of being loved by someone greater than yourself, that is similar in all Christian circles. The acceptance of your imperfection and your willingness to improve yourself on Gods terms, not your own takes a lot of weight off ones shoulders. Just because I say it is on Gods terms doesn't mean that the changes you make in your life are immediate or that you gain amnesia of all your bad living habits. But that when you do something wrong you try to correct yourself, not to make yourself look better to yourself or others, but for God who is never disappointed in you and always holding his hand out for you even though you fail. And why would one want to do this? Because doing it on their own terms has lead to sorrow and no direction.

[ahinton]

Christianity is not so much a set of rituals or daily routines. Jesus laughed at those who mindlessly followed rituals without even knowing what they where doing.

Or why they were doing it...

So folding your hands together in prayer, or the Catholics how they do that cross thing,

You mean genuflection.

or having a cross around your neck, or whatever, these are all pagan rituals which have nothing to do with Christianity.

Well, that is not quite true (other than in principle); they are not specifically and/or exclusively "to do with Christianity" and it should be remembered that other religions embrace ritual as well.

There is no need to pray with your hands folded or kneeling or eyes closed. What happens if you have no arms? Or legs, or your eyelids are missing? Is it impossible to pray then?

Good point - and of course it isn't...

So it is useless to follow rituals mindlessly and believe that you are a Christian by doing so.

"Mindlessly" is the crucial word here; there may be no specific harm in following certain rituals per se, but to follow anything connected with a religion without applying one's mind to them is indeed pointless and anyone who does this and believes that such activity alone denotes him/her as a follower of the faith concerned is deluding him/herself and, in some cases, seeking to delude others as well.

Do you pray before your meal just because you should do it, or are you really thankful that you have food so much so that it inspires you to pray and give thanks? Attending Church once a week mindlessly is also something people do and believe they are Christian.

I think that some people to indeed express their thanks that they have been spared the ravages of famine, whether brought about by wars or political activities or natural causes; again, howevdr, the mindless uttering "grace" before participating in a meal achieves nothing.

It however does not matter which denomination you go to for salvation. When there are people who are down and out in life the support you should get from any Christian denomination should help a great deal. So long the church believes that everyone is their brother and sister, despite religion, sex, sexual preference, ethnicity etc.

The problem is that such universal belief across the Christian Church as a whole is sadly far from a reality.

At the lowest times of our life the fine details and differences of denominations doesn't make a difference. The support, the love, the feeling of being loved by someone greater than yourself, that is similar in all Christian circles. The acceptance of your imperfection and your willingness to improve yourself on Gods terms, not your own takes a lot of weight off ones shoulders. Just because I say it is on Gods terms doesn't mean that the changes you make in your life are immediate or that you gain amnesia of all your bad living habits. But that when you do something wrong you try to correct yourself, not to make yourself look better to yourself or others, but for God who is never disappointed in you and always holding his hand out for you even though you fail. And why would one want to do this? Because doing it on their own terms has lead to sorrow and no direction.

All salient points in what unquestionably strikes even an uncertain "believer" such as me as a post full of good sense.

Best,

Alistair

[morningstar]

Very sensible posting and without insults! That seems to be an achievement lately. +1 for sir lostin.

[thalbergmad]

When there is sensible postings, there will be no insults.

Thal

[G.W.K]

When there is sensible postings, there will be no insults.

You can have no insults in a post, but the post could still be utter crap...

G.W.K

[cmg]

But that when you do something wrong you try to correct yourself, not to make yourself look better to yourself or others, but for God who is never disappointed in you and always holding his hand out for you even though you fail. And why would one want to do this? Because doing it on their own terms has lead to sorrow and no direction.

The Old Testament lists many curses and horrors brought down upon man by a God who is VERY disappointed and angry.

So, your argument that God is never disappointed in us is refuted by the Old Testament. 

[lostinidlewonder]

The Old Testament lists many curses and horrors brought down upon man by a God who is VERY disappointed and angry.

So, your argument that God is never disappointed in us is refuted by the Old Testament. 

It is not refuted by how he has acted in the Old testament. In the OT God is presented now and then as a more fearful entity, rather than the soft and loving God you see in the New Testament. You also see these contrasts in many other figures, look at Elijah and Jesus put in contrast for example. Where Elijah asks God to send fire from heaven to burn up soldiers, Jesus gives up and lets them take him away and put him to death. This contrasting figures are used throughout the bible and serve as theological instruction.

Doing away with a lot of the OT systems of worshiping God, Jesus came and presented a softer approach towards God, Christianity. No longer a religion of works, or following a law, of deeds or rituals to cleanse oneself. All of us that live after the Resurrection of Christ face forgiving God that always holds his hand out to us. Those that lived before the Resurrection had to deal with a more vengeful one. Who is to say what is fair or not. I think now however it is much harder to find God than say 200 years ago so it balances out in my opinion.

[cmg]

Doing away with a lot of the OT systems of worshiping God, Jesus came and presented a softer approach towards God, Christianity. No longer a religion of works, or following a law, of deeds or rituals to cleanse oneself. All of us that live after the Resurrection of Christ face forgiving God that always holds his hand out to us. Those that lived before the Resurrection had to deal with a more vengeful one. Who is to say what is fair or not. I think now however it is much harder to find God than say 200 years ago so it balances out in my opinion.

Good point, but, ironically, it's a better argument for the fact that God doesn't exist than God does exist. 

The plagues and other "natural disasters" that afflicted mankind are portrayed in the OT (the age of pre-science and superstition) as acts of God meant to display His feelings toward the behavior of mankind.

Now, we still have such natural horrors -- cancer, AIDS, earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, floods, hurricanes -- but science has taught us that these are natural phenomenon and NOT statements from God.

So, the horrors inflicted on mankind persist, but the NT hints that God has retreated from angry behavior and loves us unconditionally.

This sudden paradigm shift in theology causes many people to doubt.  I mean, if God loved us that much, then why allow Nature to inflict so much suffering upon us to begin with?

[timothy42b]

In the OT God is presented now and then as a more fearful entity, rather than the soft and loving God you see in the New Testament.

Careful here.

What you really see is a rather strict and judgmental Yahweh in the OT, and a kinder gentler Jesus in the NT. 

The contrast is so great that many early Christians believed they could not be the same - see Marcion for example. 

Nowadays it is more common simply to pretend the contrasts don't exist, which is easy because few Christians read more than selected NT passages, mostly from Paul. 

[loonbohol]

You think that I cannot believe

[lostinidlewonder]

Good point, but, ironically, it's a better argument for the fact that God doesn't exist than God does exist. 

The plagues and other "natural disasters" that afflicted mankind are portrayed in the OT (the age of pre-science and superstition) as acts of God meant to display His feelings toward the behavior of mankind.

Now, we still have such natural horrors -- cancer, AIDS, earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, floods, hurricanes -- but science has taught us that these are natural phenomenon and NOT statements from God.

So, the horrors inflicted on mankind persist, but the NT hints that God has retreated from angry behavior and loves us unconditionally.

This sudden paradigm shift in theology causes many people to doubt.  I mean, if God loved us that much, then why allow Nature to inflict so much suffering upon us to begin with?

I do not see how you can say the disasters that God sent in the OT are proven to be created by nature and science thus he is fake. If the bible was completely built upon the stories of disasters and Gods wrath, then there wouldn't be much substance to work with would there? The reality is that these disasters are not a large percentage of the bible and act as emphasis to the teachings of the parables or even real life events.

It is also an assumption that the disasters that we experience are not because of God and rather science or nature. Funnily enough because of our dependence on modern day technology, progress and processes, we are killing the earth that we live on. We have abandoned living life for a God and instead live life for consumption and production. So we destroy our own world and it reacts accordingly. To say why nature reacts as such, is it science, ourselves, God, or even the tooth fairy, is not an intelligent search imo. I certainly do not follow God because I fear he might send plagues. So this is a extremely minute detail for me at least.

The fact that natural disasters happen does not mean that God does not love us. I think we had this discussion already earlier on in this thread. If you are to say that the disasters happening are proof that God does not exist then we have to consider, perhaps if the disasters are happening it is a response from God!
    When you weigh evidence you have to see two sides of the story. It is useless to be bias and use one part of information to make your decision. So if natural disasters happen what are you supposed to think, that God is here? That God is a fake? I don't believe that in situations like this when you are presented with evidence which tears you to two sides that you use it to make a primary decision. You use it to push you towards a solution, but it certainly does not make our minds up immediately. So natural disasters really do not prove God nor disprove him.

What you really see is a rather strict and judgmental Yahweh in the OT, and a kinder gentler Jesus in the NT. 

The contrast is so great that many early Christians believed they could not be the same
Nowadays it is more common simply to pretend the contrasts don't exist, which is easy because few Christians read more than selected NT passages, mostly from Paul. 

I believe through the Bible and research that the father the son and the holy spirit are one but different. This is a difficult theological argument to go about understanding (let alone try to discuss online) and in fact there is a difference of opinion between Christian denominations whether they are seperate or together. The fact is that the OT is very judgmental, melodramatic, life and death, punishment and glory. But the NT has a different air to it, it is about forgiveness, love etc. The OT is about rule following and law living, the NT is about accepting your faults and that you break the law but you hide behind the sacrifice of Christ. To non-Christians this sounds like rambling and will be difficult to understand the reasoning for this change of character in God. But it highlights the difference between the old ways and the new ways of worshiping God, of which Jesus Christ was the sole key and the only way.

The NT is much more applicable to our Christian ways than the OT. The OT highlights a more traditional Jewish worship of God, in fact you will notice that the Jewish religion has the same OT than the Christians.

So contrasts in Gods character, the happenings of disasters, neither really proves or disproves a God, that is not what they are here to provide us with. They however are a part of the detailed research into the bibles knowledge, why would there be contrasts, what is it trying to teach us, what is the historical context when this was written etc. This however is hardly something someone wants to study if they first of all do not believe in a God. It is taking a step too far.

[00range]

It is also an assumption that the disasters that we experience are not because of God and rather science or nature.

It is not an assumption, it is knowledge based on empirical facts, observation, and proved time and again by the scientific method. It is you who are assuming (taking on faith with no evidence) of both the existence of God, and, one step further, that he is involved with the day to day running of the Earth.

I believe through the Bible and research that the father the son and the holy spirit are one but different. This is a difficult theological argument to go about understanding (let alone try to discuss online) and in fact there is a difference of opinion between Christian denominations whether they are seperate or together.

I'd be interested to hear of 'research' into this. I mean, certainly one can read what people have made up previous to you, but there is no way that I have ever heard of to conduct any sort of real research on imaginary friends, or their qualities.

I would also argue that the idea of the Trinity being difficult to grasp is ridiculous. What is difficult to grasp is why anyone would choose to believe something so trite when there are truths of the Universe infinitely deeper and more fascinating.

The NT is much more applicable to our Christian ways than the OT. The OT highlights a more traditional Jewish worship of God, in fact you will notice that the Jewish religion has the same OT than the Christians.

Yes, because you live in a morally progressive period, you take the bible in through your progressive moral outlook leading you to pick and choose things that are not absolutely absurd by today's standards. (ie: stoning, burnings, wholesale murder of cities, etc..)

They however are a part of the detailed research into the bibles knowledge, why would there be contrasts, what is it trying to teach us, what is the historical context when this was written etc. This however is hardly something someone wants to study if they first of all do not believe in a God.

Again, I would be interested in hearing more of this 'research'. I would also point out that you seem to be completely ignoring the quite real research done on the Bible and other religious scriptures which indicates that the bible most certainly was not written by a supernatural being, but by ordinary men, revised, edited and abridged, also by ordinary men, usually for reasons political.

[lostinidlewonder]

...It is you who are assuming (taking on faith with no evidence) of both the existence of God, and, one step further, that he is involved with the day to day running of the Earth.

It wasn't me that considered that looking at natural disasters in this world is proof of God or evidence against God. I stated that you cannot use that as evidence to point you in one direction or the other.

I'd be interested to hear of 'research' into this. I mean, certainly one can read what people have made up previous to you, but there is no way that I have ever heard of to conduct any sort of real research on imaginary friends, or their qualities.

Like I said before as well, it is useless to talk about the three parts of God if you do not believe in God to start with. So your interest in the theological research into proving that they are one is useless if you have no reverence for God in the first place. That was my point.

I would also argue that the idea of the Trinity being difficult to grasp is ridiculous. What is difficult to grasp is why anyone would choose to believe something so trite when there are truths of the Universe infinitely deeper and more fascinating.

Your opinion on the importance of understanding the parts of God and comparing it to the "truths of the Univerise" make little sense. As too would it be useless if I say that explaining scientific mysteries with God is more deeper than trying to find a Human logic solution. Assuming that the Trinity is not difficult to grasp is also your own opinion. If it was so clear then why is there such a difference of opinion in Christian circles on this exact topic? I do not see how you can compare Science with religion and use the Trinity as your example to base this on. It is a random comparison which is fueled by your initial disbelief in a God. That is fine if you disbelieve in God, but you cannot say that Science replaces it. We can only explain the process of Science, we cannot explain the intelligence that processes of life/nature has. To assume that science aims completely explain "how" is wrong, it only explain the effects.

Yes, because you live in a morally progressive period, you take the bible in through your progressive moral outlook leading you to pick and choose things that are not absolutely absurd by today's standards. (ie: stoning, burnings, wholesale murder of cities, etc..)

I don't where this comment came from or how you assume that you know my thought process. I do not think that these things you have listed in your examples are absurd. If you understand the historical context of what you are reading it isn't shocking at all.

I would also point out that you seem to be completely ignoring the quite real research done on the Bible and other religious scriptures which indicates that the bible most certainly was not written by a supernatural being, but by ordinary men, revised, edited and abridged, also by ordinary men, usually for reasons political.

The Bible is certainly God inspired. Of course it is written by men, whether they where ordinary is another matter. Your opinions on whether the Bible has been altered for political reasoning is true, you just have to see how much of the Bible was censored by the Catholic Church, however the Bible still remains one of the most historically accurate and reliable accounts of Ancient Jewish history (I won't consider the spiritual teachings because to an atheist this is unimportant). I am sorry but you are a little too confident to assume that the Bible is a piece of work written by man for man and has nothing to do with an inspired word of God. If one does not believe in a God to start with there is no use trying to scrutinize the Bible. Why bother taking such a far step? It is like not being interested at all to play the piano and yet you are interested to show how one should go about learning how to sight read music for the piano. First comes reverence for a God, if that is not that there there is no use arguing about God. Why not explain your reasons why going your own way makes your life easier instead of saying that you think God is a fake. It would be a more useful debate point.

[db05]

Sir lostin explains it like a priest would.  Brings back memories...

I have been through being a Christian child in a Christian famil, studying in a Catholic school, and even joined a Christian organization briefly in high school. I can honestly say I prefer being agnostic as I am now. I am impressed by how much "faith/ belief" some Christians have, but my experiece has put a bad taste in my mouth. Catholicism is overrated. Maybe other Christians are better.

But religious systems, in general, serve little spiritually and personally imo. It is mostly a social thing, and as it stands, I am not a very social person. Tradition has led us to believe that the Church and the Bible were inspired by God, and therefore, they have all the answers. We know in the back of our heads, this is not true.

[thalbergmad]

It is mostly a social thing, and as it stands, I am not a very social person. Tradition has led us to believe that the Church and the Bible were inspired by God, and therefore, they have all the answers. We know in the back of our heads, this is not true.

Yes, in my experience it is mostly a social thing. My mum is a fervent church goer (about 5 times per week), but only a small part of that is actual worship. A lot of it is cake making, coffee mornings and serving dinners to the elderly and homeless. Whilst i am not a great believer myself, the work that is put in by a lot of Chrisitians to help out others is incredible and for that, they have my undying respect.

Tradition is possibly responsible for more Christians than anything else. All my family were Christians and therefore so was I, but i do not think that Christianity provides all the answers.

Thal

[db05]

My mum is a fervent church goer (about 5 times per week), but only a small part of that is actual worship. A lot of it is cake making, coffee mornings and serving dinners to the elderly and homeless.

That's yummy. My mom is part of several organizations and works as an auditor for the church, so mostly it's being disgusted about so-called church workers being less-than-holy.

The latest news is that the restrooms have been rebuilt and they are charging 5 pesos per... uhm... session. Mom had nothing to with it, but since she's known to be a church worker herself, she's receiving the complaints.

[lostinidlewonder]

I think those social gatherings, fun raising for charity etc, these are great aspects of the Christian Church (this is not to say that it doesn't happen in other religions also). I think a big part of being  apart of a church is to work together to make a better community. This team work in the name of "good" is a strong driving force behind many religions.

[db05]

I think those social gatherings, fun raising for charity etc, these are great aspects of the Christian Church

True, but I sincerely hope you do not consider the events of having a ribbon-cutting ceremony for church restrooms and then charging a fee per use as some of those, uhm, "charity work".

We (I mean our family) used to believe that the money that goes into church goes to charity, too, until we noticed SOME things...

[thalbergmad]

I think those social gatherings, fun raising for charity etc, these are great aspects of the Christian Church (this is not to say that it doesn't happen in other religions also). I think a big part of being  apart of a church is to work together to make a better community. This team work in the name of "good" is a strong driving force behind many religions.

For once, I 100% agree.

Thal

[ahinton]

Yes, in my experience it is mostly a social thing. My mum is a fervent church goer (about 5 times per week), but only a small part of that is actual worship. A lot of it is cake making, coffee mornings and serving dinners to the elderly and homeless. Whilst i am not a great believer myself, the work that is put in by a lot of Chrisitians to help out others is incredible and for that, they have my undying respect.

Tradition is possibly responsible for more Christians than anything else. All my family were Christians and therefore so was I,

It is for this very kind of reason that Busoni despised the notion of "tradition" in the sense of the misuse of that word to represent something that is merely preserved in aspic and allowed to become stultified, irrespective of whether or not it is worth preserving in the form in which certain folk seek to preserve it; I say this as a prelude to my argument that your family members' subsctiption to Christianity does not and cannot confer upon you any kind of automatic Christian status, as you appear to suggest it has.

but i do not think that Christianity provides all the answers.

Nor do I - and nor, I suspect did Jesus Christ Himself, whose known virtues do not appear to have included and embraced arrogance...

That said, your post here otherwise displays a well balanced view, which is most welcome in an environment when so much bitter argument sadly seems so easily to arise from the very suggestion of the discussion of Christianity and such allied issues here...

Best,

Alistair

[00range]

It wasn't me that considered that looking at natural disasters in this world is proof of God or evidence against God. I stated that you cannot use that as evidence to point you in one direction or the other.

I'm not really sure of your point here. I was not commenting on natural disasters as a source of evidence for or against God, but rather commenting on:

It is also an assumption that the disasters that we experience are not because of God and rather science or nature.

And I will reiterate, that it is not an assumption to believe (because of the overwhelming evidence) that natural disasters are not caused by God, but rather through observable natural phenomenon.

Like I said before as well, it is useless to talk about the three parts of God if you do not believe in God to start with. So your interest in the theological research into proving that they are one is useless if you have no reverence for God in the first place. That was my point.

And my point was that your point is a terrible one. It would be like if I told you that my Backstreet Boys CDs are complex and fascinating music, and if, when asked for evidence of this, I told you that because your interest is irreverent, you couldn't possibly ever understand.

Your opinion on the importance of understanding the parts of God and comparing it to the "truths of the Univerise" make little sense.

I am comparing believing and spending time thinking about things like the Trinity as absurd in comparison to truly fascinating things like Multiverse theory, quantum mechanics, pulsar stars, etc..

An analogy would be, instead of pulling your garden hose over to your garden and watering it in the summer, to rather spend your days chanting and dancing for rain.

If it was so clear then why is there such a difference of opinion in Christian circles on this exact topic?

This isn't a favorable argument for the Trinity. It's exactly because it's a complete fabrication, where it isn't a product of hallucination that people will have different experiences in regarding to it. You can also never underestimate the motivation of greed, power, respect or influence.

We can only explain the process of Science, we cannot explain the intelligence that processes of life/nature has. To assume that science aims completely explain "how" is wrong, it only explain the effects.

This is totally wrong. I don't even know where to start.

First of all, believing that nature has an intelligence behind it is a complete leap of faith. There is simply no evidence supporting this, to the contrary, the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.

Your next statement is totally ridiculous. Science centers around explaining how things happen, and even how things will happen (predictions). On the contrary, religion has never predicted anything accurately.

I don't where this comment came from or how you assume that you know my thought process. I do not think that these things you have listed in your examples are absurd. If you understand the historical context of what you are reading it isn't shocking at all.

The Bible is certainly God inspired.

You will certainly be interested in my most recent discovery. I have found a second bible! It is God inspired, and totally divine.

[...]however the Bible still remains one of the most historically accurate and reliable accounts of Ancient Jewish history (I won't consider the spiritual teachings because to an atheist this is unimportant).

I mean, this is a bit ambiguous. Do you mean that the Bible contains the traditions of Jewish religion? Because if so, you may be right. To say that the Bible is a dependable historical document, however, is totally inaccurate.

I am sorry but you are a little too confident to assume that the Bible is a piece of work written by man for man and has nothing to do with an inspired word of God.

You're right. I was remiss. Would you like to buy my Bible 2.0 (I've taken to calling it this) for the reasonable sum of $100? (It is inspired by the word of God.) What, my word isn't good enough?

If one does not believe in a God to start with there is no use trying to scrutinize the Bible.

On one hand, I agree with you, spending any amount of time reading the Bible is a huge waste of time. On the other, when such a huge amount of people that I encounter in my daily life actually believe this crap, I am forced, out of necessity, to understand it to some degree.

It is like not being interested at all to play the piano and yet you are interested to show how one should go about learning how to sight read music for the piano.

Actually, it is more like being a pianist, and having to contend with half of the population telling you that it is better to read sheet music with your eyes closed.

First comes reverence for a God, if that is not that there there is no use arguing about God. Why not explain your reasons why going your own way makes your life easier instead of saying that you think God is a fake. It would be a more useful debate point.

No, it wouldn't. Whether or not it makes life easier to believe something has nothing to do with the truth. Also, I don't think God is a fake. I think that there is no evidence pointing toward a supreme being, and a colossal stack of evidence pointing against his existence.

I have no problem with anyone being Christian, or any other religion, for that matter. I have a problem with religious people trying to twist things around to make it appear that it is logical to believe not only in a deity, but their particularly ridiculous one. I have a problem with religious people posing as some sort of moral authority. I have a problem with televangelists. I have a problem with religious lobby. I have a problem with creationism.

Believe in it if you must, but know that it is totally a matter of faith (belief without evidence) and realize that it is exactly the same as believing in a celestial teapot, or the Titans.

[00range]

I think those social gatherings, fun raising for charity etc, these are great aspects of the Christian Church (this is not to say that it doesn't happen in other religions also). I think a big part of being  apart of a church is to work together to make a better community. This team work in the name of "good" is a strong driving force behind many religions.

The problem with this is that the same phenomenon is behind things like the Irish conflict, 'ethnic' cleansing, suicide bombings, and other things. I'm not directly blaming religion for the violence, rather that religion enables it by giving an easy tribal label.

[lostinidlewonder]

And I will reiterate, that it is not an assumption to believe (because of the overwhelming evidence) that natural disasters are not caused by God, but rather through observable natural phenomenon.

I don't really see the point in saying that natural disasters are not caused by God. So lets leave this alone you keep going on and on about Science explaining the world thus God does not exist. It is using human knowledge of this world (which mostly was built in the last 200 odd years) and trying to replace God with it. To me this has no connection. Progress in our intelligence is separate from God, however those who are agnostic or atheists may use it as something to further push them from God. I teach a research scientist who has studied starch for over 30 years. She tells me the more that she discovers the more mysterious life becomes for her. We can explain the processes and the effects but how, why, we cannot reproduce it, we must rely on nature to produce it. For example, no matter how much technology we have we cannot recreate an ant without relying on nature to produce it. So even professional scientists believe in a God, I think it is peoples choice to say Science replaces God and I am not here to debate this.

And my point was that your point is a terrible one. It would be like if I told you that my Backstreet Boys CDs are complex and fascinating music, and if, when asked for evidence of this, I told you that because your interest is irreverent, you couldn't possibly ever understand.

Whether what I say is terrible or not is a matter of opinion and unimportant to debate. Have I said what you say is terrible? Hardly. So lets not try to pull down each others comments because it doesn't prove anything and makes you look a little too aggressive. When I said I will not explain the Trinity to someone who doesn't believe in  a God to start with I am taking the smart path here. There is no use trying to explain something which you do not believe in in the first place. It is a waste of my time. It is trying to go too far, and your analogy of the Backstreet boys has missed my point. God is not a matter of tastes, it is a matter of faith. I won't go through my definition of faith, but it is certainly not blind faith.

I am comparing believing and spending time thinking about things like the Trinity as absurd in comparison to truly fascinating things like Multiverse theory, quantum mechanics, pulsar stars, etc..

This is opinion again. Theoretical science is left up to faith as well did you know this? Theory is not proved, it is probably true but we cannot be sure yet. If you believe that all science is based on 100% fact you might have to go read your science again.

An analogy would be, instead of pulling your garden hose over to your garden and watering it in the summer, to rather spend your days chanting and dancing for rain.

Again this is your opinion that a belief in God is a fantasy and make believe. The analogy does not really teach anyone anything it is just used to highlight your ideological stance that God is a sham. This is fine but unfortunately it doesn't open any roads to debate.

This isn't a favorable argument for the Trinity.

I made no argument for the existence of the Trinity at all. You may be selectively reading what I am writing. I asked the question why there is debate over the trinity in Christian circles because you said the subject is not something debatable. Perhaps yes if you believe that this is all make believe and story telling, you are right! But on a theological level it certainly is under debate in this world. Whether you believe in it or not is totally irrelevant, the fact that it is debated is the point.

First of all, believing that nature has an intelligence behind it is a complete leap of faith. There is simply no evidence supporting this, to the contrary, the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.

There are many living exceptions to the theory of evolution, I am sure you know about them if it interests you so. Every living creature starts out as the same cell, then this cell knows how to divide in such a way as to become what it is meant to be. Scientists cannot describe how a cell divides and becomes what it should be, it is something they cannot recreate without relying on the "magic" of nature. The unexplained exists throughout science, so a belief in a God, also a great unexplained, is not so much more different. One can measure the effect of God on the subject, ask a Psychologist for date correlating depression and mental illness with a spiritual belief in a God.

Your next statement is totally ridiculous. Science centers around explaining how things happen, and even how things will happen (predictions). On the contrary, religion has never predicted anything accurately.

Science is not based on predictions alone so I find the connection between predictions and value of content a little flimsy. The bible has many predictions all which have already come true for Ancient Jewish history. Revelations also has predictions for more recent and future times. Sure people can scrutinize the accuracy etc, but the bible is not a written as a  book of predictions or future telling. That is in there, but it does not constitute a huge part of the bible. It is a detail that is important to study once you have reverence for God.

I mean, this is a bit ambiguous. Do you mean that the Bible contains the traditions of Jewish religion? Because if so, you may be right. To say that the Bible is a dependable historical document, however, is totally inaccurate.

The bible is considered one of the most historically accurate ancient books ever written. Those that study this fact and come to a disagreement with this are a minority. Sure there are plenty of people who disregard the bible without even studying if it is accurate or not. It is not my duty to educate them, the info is out there and it is all supported by countless academics who devote their life to the study of Ancient history and especially ancient Jewish history.

On one hand, I agree with you, spending any amount of time reading the Bible is a huge waste of time. On the other, when such a huge amount of people that I encounter in my daily life actually believe this crap, I am forced, out of necessity, to understand it to some degree.

Again you point out your opinion that the Bible is a waste of time and worthelss. I think we get the point already. However you are not supporting yourself merely highlighting your opinion again.
 

....Whether or not it makes life easier to believe something has nothing to do with the truth. Also, I don't think God is a fake. I think that there is no evidence pointing toward a supreme being, and a colossal stack of evidence pointing against his existence.

You do not think God is a fake but you the evidence you have weighed points against it. Please define your evidence that you have found. You must explain it without replacing God with other human aspects. You must say how belief in a God ruins your life, restricts your life, makes your life more burdensome. It has nothing to do with saying things like, well a hurricane is caused by air pressures so God does not exist.

I have no problem with anyone being Christian, or any other religion, for that matter. I have a problem with religious people trying to twist things around to make it appear that it is logical to believe not only in a deity, but their particularly ridiculous one. ...

But you are so confident that your own logic is correct and overrides thousands of years of spiritual (bar that because it probably doesn't interest you) and moral teachings? When we are talking about Christianity there is a logic to their knowledge. As a Christian I am here to question twisted ideas of outsiders on Christianity. Not that is important or a duty of mine, but because this is an online discussion forum and I like to debate issues like this. I hardly go around in the world around me and debate these issues. It wastes too much time, there are much more important things to do as a Christian than to debate points with non-believers. However it is a good thing to do now and then just to see other peoples perspectives. We don't go about discussing it by pulling other peoples ideas down however we try to open avenues for discussion.

Believe in it if you must, but know that it is totally a matter of faith (belief without evidence) and realize that it is exactly the same as believing in a celestial teapot, or the

It is certainly much more faith than anything else. And faith is God given. However we can research into the facts. Research into the Historical Christ. Trying to see if the Christ of History is the same as the Christ of Faith. This has already been suggested in previous posts so I won't repeat myself.

[gyzzzmo]

I don't really see the point in saying that natural disasters are not caused by God. So lets leave this alone you keep going on and on about Science explaining the world thus God does not exist. It is using human knowledge of this world (which mostly was built in the last 200 odd years) and trying to replace God with it. To me this has no connection. Progress in our intelligence is separate from God, however those who are agnostic or atheists may use it as something to further push them from God. I teach a research scientist who has studied starch for over 30 years. She tells me the more that she discovers the more mysterious life becomes for her. We can explain the processes and the effects but how, why, we cannot reproduce it, we must rely on nature to produce it. For example, no matter how much technology we have we cannot recreate an ant without relying on nature to produce it. So even professional scientists believe in a God, I think it is peoples choice to say Science replaces God and I am not here to debate this.

And why can you be so certain that it isnt the other way around: People used to place a God for any unknown reason, because of the lack of science?

Btw here's a quote from myself from another thread:

"Anyway, if you know more about psychology you would know that its a natural thing for humans to 'believe'. It gives them comfort since with some fantasy a religion is an answer for alot of 'why-questions'. And the fun of religion is that you dont have to understand it, just assume it without any proof. The easy way.
And the biggest psychological origin of religion is probably that people dont want to accept that we're biological nothing more than any other organism, and that life itself doesnt really have a goal or purpose. And what do practically all religions provide? Heaven: The ultimate paradise, filled with hot angels!"
(end quote)

Whether to believe or not has nothing to do with being a scientist, it is about how somebody is psychological 'open' for idea's and about how and in what way somebody needs their minds comforted.


Gyzzzmo

PS. It is not we who have to proof that a God does NOT excist. Afterall, religion is about BELIEVING things that can't be proven. So if people find proof that things dont happen like a religion predicted, its the religion who has to proof that that proof is flawed. Not the other way around.

[00range]

I don't really see the point in saying that natural disasters are not caused by God.

Do you believe that they are (caused by God)? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying.

If you are not arguing that this is the case, then I can see how my bringing it up would seem pointless. If you are arguing that there is some doubt, then it is a completely valid discussion point.

We can explain the processes and the effects but how, why, we cannot reproduce it, we must rely on nature to produce it. For example, no matter how much technology we have we cannot recreate an ant without relying on nature to produce it.

Not yet, and maybe, as you say, we will never be able to. We don't know either way yet (though many leading scientists would argue that it is definitely possible). This is a vital part of the scientific method, not knowing. If we knew, we wouldn't need science to figure out.

You do not, however, just assign the unknowns to God, Yahweh, Allah, or whatever.

This would be the same as talking to someone from the 17th century. The 17th century person might argue that the heavens are forever unattainable by Men, being the realm of God.

So lets not try to pull down each others comments because it doesn't prove anything and makes you look a little too aggressive.

I don't think I am being overly aggressive, although I am putting your comments down as ridiculous, because, logical speaking, they are. Anyway, being Christian, you ought to thank me for giving you a perfect opportunity to forgive someone. 

There is no use trying to explain something which you do not believe in in the first place. It is a waste of my time.

This is reasonable only in terms of faith (belief in the lack of evidence). Of course it is unreasonable for you to try to explain it to me in terms of faith. It is simply: here it is, it is true, believe it. And sometimes, it was: here it is, it is true, believe it, for if you don't you will be burned at the stake, stoned, ostracized, or any other punishment, ranging in severity.

It is not, however, a waste of time to explain something based in reality to someone who doesn't believe it.

A perfect example are modern boats. The large ones are made of, among other things, heavy metals, and it is completely absurd that one should float. Metal does not float. However, they do float, as any rational person will attest to. So, you can take someone completely skeptical, possibly certain in their belief that you can not float several tons of metal on water, and disprove their belief, through evidence.

God is not a matter of tastes, it is a matter of faith. I won't go through my definition of faith, but it is certainly not blind faith.

Please, do. I am interested in hearing your definition of faith, or what would make it not blind. Evidence? If so, what qualifies, in your mind, as evidence?

Theoretical science is left up to faith as well did you know this? Theory is not proved, it is probably true but we cannot be sure yet. If you believe that all science is based on 100% fact you might have to go read your science again.

Yes and no. Just because something is not proved to be true, or not true, does not mean that we cannot shade the possibilities. When I say I am certain that God does not exist, I am saying that with the same certainty that I am that there is not an invisible dragon living underneath my sink. It is possible, but if you wanted to express the likelihood in a percentage, you might not have enough time in your life to write all of the zeros.

There are many living exceptions to the theory of evolution, I am sure you know about them if it interests you so.

You'll have to be more specific here. If there had ever been found one single organism that was found to be irreducibly complex, the entire Darwinian "theory" (as an aside, it is only a theory in the specialized use of the word in science, in everyday speech, the proper word is "fact") of evolution. This has not occurred.

So, what are you referring to, exactly?

Every living creature starts out as the same cell, then this cell knows how to divide in such a way as to become what it is meant to be. Scientists cannot describe how a cell divides and becomes what it should be, it is something they cannot recreate without relying on the "magic" of nature. The unexplained exists throughout science, so a belief in a God, also a great unexplained, is not so much more different.

Yes, of course our knowledge is incomplete. This doesn't justify a belief in God.

One can measure the effect of God on the subject, ask a Psychologist for date correlating depression and mental illness with a spiritual belief in a God.

If you are inferring that there is a negative correlation between belief in a God and mental depression, a citation is needed.

There are, however, any number of independent researches done linking a positive correlation of intelligence and education and disbelief in a supreme being, or God.

My point is that even if it is healthy (which I totally disagree, and would go so far as to say that not one genuine study can infer this) it is not evidence that God exists.

An analogy is belief in Santa Clause. I was absolutely crushed when I learned that he wasn't real - this isn't a reason to continue belief in him, however.

Science is not based on predictions alone so I find the connection between predictions and value of content a little flimsy.

This is one of the key components to the scientific method. If a hypothesis cannot provide extremely accurate predictions, it is no good. Therefor there is a direct relation between quality of predictions and value of content.

The bible has many predictions all which have already come true for Ancient Jewish history. Revelations also has predictions for more recent and future times. Sure people can scrutinize the accuracy etc, but the bible is not a written as a  book of predictions or future telling. That is in there, but it does not constitute a huge part of the bible. It is a detail that is important to study once you have reverence for God.

This is as ridiculous as claiming that Nostradamus predicted the September 11th attacks. Name anything that the Bible has predicted, and how it predicted it and disprove me. (I am not saying this as an attack, I would genuinely interested in hearing of proof of the supernatural.)

And of course it is a detail that is important to study after you already have faith, because without faith the complete lack of logic and evidence preclude one from belief.

It is interesting that this is a key component of every religion, indeed, most modern cults take full advantage of this - Scientology being a prime example. It doesn't introduce the totally ridiculous creation myths (which I assume you do not believe?) until the person is so brainwashed that it doesn't matter. It is the same for Christianity, except that the wildly outlandish creation myths are socially acceptable and that children (who do not need to be brainwashed, being children) are exposed to them at an early age.
 

You do not think God is a fake but you the evidence you have weighed points against it. Please define your evidence that you have found. You must explain it without replacing God with other human aspects.

I'm interested, first of all, in how you feel anything I've said validates the existence of a supreme being.

Your second sentence outlines one of the most overused, thoroughly discredited, and laughable arguments used in favor of religion. The onus of proof is on you, and if you don't understand this, then you are either ignorant, willfully ignorant, or stupid.

If it is the first, and you are simply ignorant as to why this is such a specious argument, please say so and I will take the time to write why, or provide some further reading.

You must say how belief in a God ruins your life, restricts your life, makes your life more burdensome. It has nothing to do with saying things like, well a hurricane is caused by air pressures so God does not exist.

To what purpose? And, if you want me to answer this question, which I will to the best of my ability, you'll have to be more specific of God, because as my ruleset would change, so would my behavior (assuming I believed, and, logically, I would want to be rewarded in the afterlife). So, are you referring to a supreme creator, Yahweh, Norse, Allah, Greek Gods, Shiva, etc..?

Trying to see if the Christ of History is the same as the Christ of Faith. This has already been suggested in previous posts so I won't repeat myself.

Do you mean trying to find out if he was born of a virgin, raised his friend from the dead, turned water into wine and rose from the dead?

[lostinidlewonder]

"Anyway, if you know more about psychology you would know that its a natural thing for humans to 'believe'. It gives them comfort since with some fantasy a religion is an answer for alot of 'why-questions'. And the fun of religion is that you dont have to understand it, just assume it without any proof.

Of course it is impossible to prove that God exists or that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. It is not impossible however to prove that Jesus Christ did exist and did cause a dramatic change in Ancient Jewish worship like no other. This point falls on deaf ears mostly because most do not understand how Ancient Jewish religion worked. Any change in their religion is a monumental deal.

This does not however inspire one to believe in Christianity as such. It does give some credit to Christianity however since you can verify (through ancient historians and even  archeology) figures mentioned throughout the Bible, places, cities, tribes etc.

Some offshoots of Christianity such as the Mormon church have their own Book of which none of the tribes, people or places mentioned can be verified from outside sources. This does not so much disprove the Mormon belief, but it does reduce the credibility of their book. The Bible certainly does not suffer this stigma.

Proof for God cannot be yielded in a scientific experiment, you cannot expect a miracle like a burning bush. However you can, like in quantum physics, observe the after effects instead of the exact moment of collision (The personal relationship with God.)

Death is considered the worst thing that can happen to ones family. How do people deal with death is different. Some take a rather neutral or pessimistic stance on death. That we simple cease to exist and that it is the end. When our loved ones die they are simply gone forever and we have to deal with that. We can honor them by living our own life reflecting their memory. This brings us relief, that we can feel our departed loved ones through our actions every day. This does not require a belief in a God and thus many people deal with death in this way.

However a faith in God takes this a step further. We do not only remember our loved ones in the way we live every day, but we have been revealed that we are always connected through God.

There are differences in Christian denominations as to what exactly happens after death. This is what can causes such confusion in access to Christianity. If one is very interested in the point they can make theological research into the bible to determine exactly what it says about what happens in life after death. This has nothing to do with believing in God this is studying a book and determining what it exactly says on certain issues. There is no faith required, it is analysis of a book.

Humans are of course selfish and self centered beings. Most first find an interest in God because of the hope that it will save them from death. To have some answer to death. The Anglican's believe in a spiritual life after death, where our existence is not of a physical earthly existence, but a spiritual everlasting one. However the Jehova's Witness, another Christian offshoot, believes that the 2nd life will be on this earth itself. Who is right? Is this detail important? Only if you make it so.

That is what is so interesting about a faith in Christianity. It is very simple, very accessible to everyone. It would be wrong to say that all Christians must study the bible in great depth and understanding to be considered a true Christian. Blasphemy!

There are people in this world who are not so blessed as us to be able to think freely, intellectually or even intelligently. But they too can be devoted Christians. The fine points are not important, they are not what drives our faith. What happens exactly after our death is not on our minds every day. The belief in Christ is a belief in the resurrection and a reverence for God. And simply keep the greatest commandment which is to Love.

Is this foolish thinking? To find answeres to death with a life after death faith? No one knows what happens when you die, so what action do you take? Do you just say that there is no knowing and it is foolish to try to know? If that benefits your life you should do so! However for most we like to believe that we will see our dead loved ones again.

You cannot say this is foolish thinking or not. However the Chrisitian has a relationship with God that is not about death but your life as you live it now. You have the confidence that in death God will look after you. But it is not a point you dwell on. you live life not death. Our Father is the God of the Living. Fantasy thinking or not, one cannot say, because the grounds for spiritual issues cannot be dealth witth with 1+1=2 logic or like I said, a burning bush evidence.

Do you believe that they(disasters) are (caused by God)? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying.

I believe that in questions like this God is simply the clockmaker. That he has already predetermined what situations are required to cause a disaster and it will happen when these situations occur. God is the clockmaker in the fact that he has set everything up and then lets it run its course.

Not yet, and maybe, as you say, we will never be able to. We don't know either way yet (though many leading scientists would argue that it is definitely possible). This is a vital part of the scientific method, not knowing. If we knew, we wouldn't need science to figure out.

You do not, however, just assign the unknowns to God, Yahweh, Allah, or whatever.

It is not meant to prove God but it certainly points out that there are vast unknown realms in our science of which happens automatically around us in Nature.

I don't think I am being overly aggressive, although I am putting your comments down as ridiculous, because, logical speaking, they are. Anyway, being Christian, you ought to thank me for giving you a perfect opportunity to forgive someone. 

I don't have to forgive you because you didn't cause any harm to me in the first place. I am just saying in a matter of debate, where personal feelings are left out, pulling peoples down comments with basic "what you say is crap" stances is worthless and a waste of time in a debate forum.

This is reasonable only in terms of faith (belief in the lack of evidence). Of course it is unreasonable for you to try to explain it to me in terms of faith. It is simply: here it is, it is true, believe it. And sometimes, it was: here it is, it is true, believe it, for if you don't you will be burned at the stake, stoned, ostracized, or any other punishment, ranging in severity.

Obviously you have had bad experienced with fear mongering Christians. My stance is that the boat is sinking come on everyone lets get on the life rafts! Then there are people saying, the boats not sinking and you can't prove it. I'll say well why not just sit here with us and be safe. There is no damage in believing in Christ and the resurrection. It does not make you into a zombie, a fantasy thinker. It sets your mind straight, it allows you to see through the thick of chaos that can exist in your life. But what about Bhuddah or Allah or etc? Why not just find out if you believe in a God first. Maybe that is your life long challenge, who is to say. To a believer of God it might seem laughable that someone is saved just by finally believing in God where they have believed all their life and struggled with the relationship throughout, but do they really know what they are thinking about?

Some people live very easy lives. They do not experience injustice, they do not experience disasters. Life is easy going. But just wait, everyone in the end hits bumps in their life of which there is no human logic or earthly things that can console you.

Please, do. I am interested in hearing your definition of faith, or what would make it not blind. Evidence? If so, what qualifies, in your mind, as evidence?

Once one has a relationship with God one can feel this relationship themselves. It is a feeling from within, a confidence, a support. How can you describe your love for your mother or father? You can describe the feeling you have, what you have done together, but in the end I have to believe that your story is true don't I? Sure I can visit and see that your parents are there in the physical body but again this is wrong thinking when it comes to spiritual matters. Evidence is not walking on water or feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread. Evidence is seeing how it effects the persons life. But if you want evidence for Christ or evidence for the reliability for the bible, you have a huge theological search to go on about. Of which I would be arrogant to say I could completely introduce to you. The info is out there go look at it if it interest you. Thus your other comments following on about  proof are answered.

Your other points didn't have much to comment about because they are asking me to define what I think instead of highlighting what you think. This sets you up to critique what I say instead of defining your own stance. That you simply believe God doesn't exist is fine, but that does not disprove that I believe he exists. Just like if I said, God exists so you are crazy not to believe this please prove to me why you believe he doesn't exist without saying there is no proof that he does exist.  etc etc.. waste of time.

[00range]

So, would I be wrong in saying that you believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel good?

[gyzzzmo]

So, would I be wrong in saying that you believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel good?

Dont we all believe what we believe because it feels 'best' for us?

[morningstar]

So, would I be wrong in saying that you believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel good?

Do you not believe in things that make you feel good? Not that believing in Christ always feels good but things come good in the end.

[lostinidlewonder]

So, would I be wrong in saying that you believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel good?

It is not about feeling good or bad. It is a relationship, like with other people you love. The relationship with loved ones is not always good, it is mixed with good and bad experiences. But in the end whatever happens strengthens you relationship if you love one another. There is a love connection behind our belief but love is not always good butterfly feelings.
 Why are there so much divorce these days? Because as soon as a love relationship has a bump people run away from it and say it's over. Why do people lose respect for one another when they are supposed to be in love with one another? Why do people become bored with their loved one and move on, why do people think that arguments and disagreements in a love relationship is what breaks a relationship? A relationship with God is full of disagreements, your human nature always wants to go against the Word of God, but you both know this, and you both don't stress out on that fact. It is what causes the change in your character, that you actually change yourself on terms of someone greater than you.

[pianogeek_cz]

Ain't it funny that some of the most fervent opponents of [a] God are actually flinging their arguments at known heresies? Like, this old "God of the gaps" thing, that God starts where science fails...

Heck, if God was what some here argue against, I would be on their side, definitely...

[Petter]

Once upon a time there was a stupid parrot who flew to the priest and asked him for coca cola. The priest said no and told the parrot to go away. The next day the parrot came back and asked the priest again for some coca cola. The priest got angry and said: "If you ever ask me for coca cola again I will nail you to the wall" and he shooed the parrot away. The next day the parrot came back and he asked the priest: "Can I have some coca-cola?" The priest got furious and nailed the parrot to the wall. The parrot looked to his left where there was a crucifix and he asked Jesus: "Did you also ask for coca cola?"

bawhahaa.

I read the bible, I picked out the good stuff. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Once upon a time there was a stupid parrot who flew to the priest and asked him for coca cola. The priest said no and told the parrot to go away. The next day the parrot came back and asked the priest again for some coca cola. The priest got angry and said: "If you ever ask me for coca cola again I will nail you to the wall" and he shooed the parrot away. The next day the parrot came back and he asked the priest: "Can I have some coca-cola?" The priest got furious and nailed the parrot to the wall. The parrot looked to his left where there was a crucifix and he asked Jesus: "Did you also ask for coca cola?"

bawhahaa.

I read the bible, I picked out the good stuff. 

Maybe you should read it without taking illicit drugs

[Petter]

I have actually read the NT ( ). I think there´s some hilarious comics and witty parts. Probably one reason people still enjoy it. The Virigin vs  w h o r e thing is something we have to put behind us thought. 

[scottical]

Have you ever been to a black church? 

[lostinidlewonder]

Heck, if God was what some here argue against, I would be on their side, definitely...

I agree, the definition of God is very various, especially from those who do not have a reverence for a God, their opinions on God are always colorful.