Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[pianistimo]

our very calendar is set up BC and AD.  if that isn't proof, i don't know a better one.  even the romans began the system, and they weren't particularly religious.  must have been a severe earthquake also, at the time of the ressurrection.  the sky was darkened.  they thought it was the end of the world, probably.  the earthquake moved away the stone from his burial site.

[prometheus]

prometheus, about your first point, two threads up - celibacy neither proves or disproves the bible.

the point was that Newton expressed behavior that indicated that he did not only call himself a christian just because everyone was. Apperently he had certain views that made him not only celibate but claim that it was his biggest achivement.

then i skipped to the part that jumped out at me.  george washington a terrorist?  he was a conscripted soldier that became a general in a short time.

He led a resistance army against the British, who were the legally established order, using guerrilla tactics. Just as my grandfather was a terrorist for fighting against the nazi's.

BUT, he was fighting opression of a fledgling country that was to become the greatest country to fight for human rights.

All terrorists fight against oppression. And the US doesn't try to defend human rights. On the contrary. They often oppose international human rights treaties because those treaties claim the us violates human rights. I could give examples but I will do that in another topic.

[thalbergmad]

our very calendar is set up BC and AD.  if that isn't proof, i don't know a better one.  even the romans began the system, and they weren't particularly religious.  must have been a severe earthquake also, at the time of the ressurrection.  the sky was darkened.  they thought it was the end of the world, probably.  the earthquake moved away the stone from his burial site.

How in hell is our calendar proof of the crucifiction.

Romans, not religious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And as for darkened skies and earthquakes, i suppose that came from your book of fables as well.

I think you have been watching too many films. I suppose you think John Wayne was one of the Centurions.

Thal

[prometheus]

Hitler was definitely not christian.

You can dispute the fact that he was not christian. But if I was wrong in calling him a christian then you are wrong in calling him 'defenitely not a christian'.

He used to talk about god as "The allmighty" but he never specified that. For me and many other people here in Europe this term "allmighty" in hitlers mouth means not "God" but "Satan" And it is obvious.

It is silly to say that he meant satan instead of god because you think he was a bad guy. It's like saying that Pope Urban II believed in satan when he called for the first crusade. Fact is that he believed he was doing something good. All 'evil' people believe they are doing something good. If you can't see this then you are at danger as well. Because then you think that thinking you are doing something good is enough to actually be good. That doesn't cut it. Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg describes religion as an insult to human dignity. 'Without it,' he says, 'you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' I agree.

If you think this is obvious then something is very wrong with you. It means that in potential your moral compass is damaged.

Also, I am from Europe.

I know that, because my father lived in these times and told me many many facts and experiences about WW2 and "third Reich".

I live about 15 kilometers away from the german border.

It is clear Hitler believed in a god of some kind. THe question is if he included Jesus as well.  Hitler was raised as a christian. Christianity was part of the national socialistic party. He also made agreements with the Vatican and catholic christianity was to become the official religion of the third reich. Also Hitlers anti-semitism comes from christianity. He may not have been a christian in the sense many people define one. But he was religion and very much influened by Christ and the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

So, saying that Hitler was definitely not a christian because he was too evil to be one is really something that I cannot take seriously. It's like me saying that Mao couldn't have been an atheist because he was too evil to be one.

In the same sense; western people often say that moderate muslims should speak out agaisnt extremeist members of their religion. But if we apply your logic these extremists aren't muslims because they are too evil to be muslim. This means actual muslims have nothing to do with them. Now I already think that in most cases they have already too little to do with each other eventhough they share the same religion for western people to claim moderate muslims need to speak out against extremists. But if we apply your logic we get into much stranger things. It must be a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.


 Futermore when you critisize me for not doing enough enough research is silly. Also, I posted many things you now refuse to respond to. That's fine. Not everyone wants to spend that much time. But you select out one point where you can think you can attack me. I think that is quite a sinister discussion tactic.

[prometheus]

our very calendar is set up BC and AD.  if that isn't proof, i don't know a better one.  even the romans began the system, and they weren't particularly religious.  must have been a severe earthquake also, at the time of the ressurrection.  the sky was darkened.  they thought it was the end of the world, probably.  the earthquake moved away the stone from his burial site.

You have already proven in earlier post that you know nothing of the roman empire. I am sure you also don't know anything about the origin of our current calender. You also don't seem to know why the roman empire became a christian empire later on.

Maybe you should just shut your mouth. You don't see me talking about things I don't know anything about.

[BoliverAllmon]

Manmade. Fear used as tactic to develop morality. 2,000 year old hand picked madness. Outdated ridiculous theories. Brainwashed from birth. Spread like virus. Modern caveman thought. Subconcious splintering. Limiting factors of technology. Boundaries, not infinity. Money.

Continue.

sounds like liberalism, not christianity.

[letters]

i think what we all must understand is that you cannot lump, for example, an Italian roman catholic, an American evangelist and a priest from Surrey together. It is unfortunate that only the extreme aspects of Christanity are ever shown on the news, in the media etc. From my background, growing up in a small C of E church, it appears to me that the majority of bog standard ordinary anglicans understand that the creation is a story made up by people writing at the time, to best explain their surroundings and how they came to be there. We do not claim that evolution is the be all and end all of how we got here - it is currently our best explanation. What Christians must do is to look at the Bible from more than one angle - yes, it is God's word but it is God's word interpreted and percieved by people who lived 2000 years ago.

As a Christian I feel I have to try to find my own interpretation of what these people wrote down. So, I read a verse saying that a man should not lie with another man as with a woman, and understand that to mean that God does not want gay people. But, if you look at what Jesus has said, basically praising loving relationships, care and protection for you partner, then i cannot see how gay couples could be "wrong". There are many gay couples who are happier, more caring and loving than straight couples. The sense that i get from the Bible is one of overriding love.

I would label myself a liberal Christian. I am not evangelist, and i keep my beliefs pretty much to myself. My mother is a priest and I have felt the recieving end of bitter people within our own church who refuse to go when my mother is preaching. It is really sad and it is people who have this streak of sexism hammered into them when they were young who have marred my mother's journey in the church. However, looking at social, political and biblical circumstances, i can forgive them. They are too proud to admit they are ignorant.

I could go on for ages but the point is you cannot make ludicrous claims like "all christians are brainwashed" because you have probably only experienced the extremes of this religion, and not first hand. Go to a church one sunday. Go to different denominations - Baptist, C of E, Evangelist, maybe even Catholic. Then you can comment.

[berceuse]

Most of these composers lived a long time ago. Not being christian would be considered insane.

Messiaen did probably have very religious parents, and let us just face it, he lived in France, and France is a very catholic country.

How would this be considered insane? The Enlightenment occured during the 17th and 18th century. Metaphysics was started a lot earlier than that.. They knew people who were atheists, some almost became atheists. Atheism was somewhat common in Western Europe, so to say they were unaware of philosophical subjects such as metaphysics, epistemology, reliabilism, infinitism, nihilism, etc. is contrived and unrealistic

[prometheus]

...but the point is you cannot make ludicrous claims like "all christians are brainwashed"...

No one made that statement. If you look at religion in society you will see that religion is inherited. It is passed down the parental line. So yes, I would say children are taught to be religious. One does not grow up and examine all religions of the world rationally and then picks the one most appropriate. And that is also not the way religion is taught. Children understand pretty early that one religion is 'ours' and the other is 'theirs' and what religion they are supposed to have. Children believe anything their parents tell them. If they wouldn't they would have a significant evolutionary disadvantage.

...because you have probably only experienced the extremes of this religion, and not first hand. Go to a church one sunday. Go to different denominations - Baptist, C of E, Evangelist, maybe even Catholic. Then you can comment.

Actually, I think the point made is stronger when aimed at liberal christians. Fundamentalists are totally insane. But liberal christians are supposed to have some sense. It is strange that they still follow the religious beliefs of Taliban-like people that lived in the stone age. For example the role of woman, which you hinted at. The Taliban are very harsh on woman. The people of the old testament are generally believed to be worse. But you think the book they wrote is the word of god. This means you believe these people can give you moral guidance. But at the same time you find the idea that your mother can't be a priest a form of bigotry. right? If you recognise the bible is flawed and contains barbaric ideas then why don't you just get rid of it completely?

Like I explained before, liberal christians are generally more pleasant people but they do betray both reason and faith while fundamentalists only betray reason. In that regard the fundamentalist position is more logical.

[musik_man]

My goodness, I think Prometheus has written more in this thread than the rest of the forum combined.

[pianowolfi]

 Futermore when you critisize me for not doing enough enough research is silly. Also, I posted many things you now refuse to respond to. That's fine. Not everyone wants to spend that much time. But you select out one point where you can think you can attack me. I think that is quite a sinister discussion tactic.

Sorry prometheus, currently it's simply too much for me . I don't have a tactic. Perhaps later I may respond to your other arguments. For now I decided to stop posting in this thread.

[berceuse]

My goodness, I think Prometheus has written more in this thread than the rest of the forum combined.

I think what you're trying to say is that prometheus likes to use the "Overload objections" tactic and throw as much garbage at you as possible. He/she also feels that they are more intelligent than the likes of Anselm of Canterbury, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz, Aristides the Athenian, Newton etc. who greatly contributed to the advancement of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and philosophy. But when it came to religion they had no idea what they were talking about.

[musik_man]

I don't think there is any conscious attempt on Prometheus's part to simply overwhelm his opponent with words.  It's just his writing style.

[thalbergmad]

Old Chinese proverb say:

If you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bull@@@t.

Thal

[ahinton]

Old Chinese proverb say:

If you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bull@@@t.

Thal

Yes, but Confucius he say "if you can't dazzle them with bull@@@t, baffle them with brilliance" - which fact proves, if nothing else, that it's amazing just how much can get lost in the translation - or, to put it another way, there's many a slip 'twixt the Chink in the cup and the slit in the lip...

Best,

Alistair

[berceuse]

ok, perhaps not pure garbage, but I do feel that he tries to overwhelm in hopes that you just give up. Then again, what do I know? I'm just a lowly Christian.

However, I would be interested to know where many of you athiests live. I'm guessing many are from Western Europe, Scandanavia, Canada and other places with significant populations of atheists where one can be easily influenced in the same way you claim Christians are. It has to works both ways.

[maul]

I'm not an atheist.

[berceuse]

I'm not an atheist.

Do you beleive in God though?

[prometheus]

I think what you're trying to say is that prometheus likes to use the "Overload objections" tactic and throw as much garbage at you as possible.

Actually, I think that everything I say contains an important point.

He/she also feels that they are more intelligent than the likes of Anselm of Canterbury, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz, Aristides the Athenian, Newton etc. who greatly contributed to the advancement of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and philosophy. But when it came to religion they had no idea what they were talking about.

First off, this is the authority fallacy. Something which Anselm of Canterbury, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz, Aristides the Athenian, Newton etc would have understood. Second, some of these people weren't specialists on religion. In the case that you are going to accept authority in the field of knowledge, do so only when someone is working inside their own field. Because outside they will be as ignorant as anyone. And third. Some people are just deluded, yes. I can make a long list of people that are respected because of their intellect that make outragous claims.

Fact is also that I know more about physics than Newton did. Just because the field has come a long way since Newton.
And I can just as well invoke a list longer than yours of those that were not monotheistic, eventhough less western thinkers were. Does this then mean that they didn't know what they were talking about?



As for atheism and demographics. I saw someone talk about China. Most atheists live in countries like China, the Korea's, etc. But these people sometimes do have religious ideas. But they do not contain gods. Of course China contains many many many different people, all with different customs and religions. But Taoism and Confucianism do not contain gods. Buddhism doesn't contain gods. And that are the major ones. Same for south korea. It is the country with the lowest number of monotheists or polythesists I have seen.

[maul]

No I don't believe in your "God". I believe in something that cannot be put into words or any book.

[jre58591]

No I don't believe in your "God". I believe in something that cannot be put into words or any book.

so, would you be agnostic?

[berceuse]

No I don't believe in your "God". I believe in something that cannot be put into words or any book.

Alright, thats good enough for me. But I don't think my "God" can be fully coprhended either.

[maul]

No... there are certain reasons why I wouldn't be put into that category... and I don't like labeling myself.

[berceuse]

No... there are certain reasons why I wouldn't be put into that category... and I don't like labeling myself.

I truthfully respect your opinion. I hope I'm not coming off as someone who disregards anybodys opinion just because they don't agree with me.

[maul]

not at all mang

[berceuse]

Actually, I think that everything I say contains an important point.

First off, this is the authority fallacy. Something which Anselm of Canterbury, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz, Aristides the Athenian, Newton etc would have understood. Second, some of these people weren't specialists on religion. In the case that you are going to accept authority in the field of knowledge, do so only when someone is working inside their own field. Because outside they will be as ignorant as anyone. And third. Some people are just deluded, yes. I can make a long list of people that are respected because of their intellect that make outragous claims.

Fact is also that I know more about physics than Newton did. Just because the field has come a long way since Newton.
And I can just as well invoke a list longer than yours of those that were not monotheistic, eventhough less western thinkers were. Does this then mean that they didn't know what they were talking about?



As for atheism and demographics. I saw someone talk about China. Most atheists live in countries like China, the Korea's, etc. But these people sometimes do have religious ideas. But they do not contain gods. Of course China contains many many many different people, all with different customs and religions. But Taoism and Confucianism do not contain gods. Buddhism doesn't contain gods. And that are the major ones. Same for south korea. It is the country with the lowest number of monotheists or polythesists I have seen.

Hey prometheus, may I ask what your views are on the Ontological agrument? I am not saying this is why I believe in God but I'm interesed in what you think of it. (I'll take a guess and say you disagree)

P.S Hasn't China encountered a rapid growth in Christianity due to the house church movement? I thought I saw an estimated population of 100 million. Granted, China has something like 1.3 billion people but I still think it's significant

[pianistimo]

i admit to being the least theological thinking, and most 'lets just get out the bible and read it.'  so, prometheus, you win temporarily.  but, i still say that the romans used christianity 'conveniently' and not because they were all heartfelt.  and, yet, the bible has an entire book written to the romans.  yes, they had greek gods (with an s).  i was referring to the true God and true Christianity.  so, in that sense, for the centurion (and no, he wasn't john wayne - although that was funny) to suddenly realize 'truly this man WAS the Son of God...' (mark15:39) meant that he didn't believe until he saw it for himself (the earthquake, the veil of the temple miraculously ripped, and darkness which suddenly covered the land from the sixth to ninth hour at Christ's death). 

and, if you do not think the calendar was suddenly changed - WHY is there BC and AD  (before Christ and after Christ).  explain why the calendar has stayed this  way until 2006 (approx) years after Christ?  if it is not important - then you didn't give a reason.

ps  i do understand why people cannot accept 'religion' as it typically comes packaged.  but, with the bible - you have words that you can translate back to hebrew or greek - and you can find out a lot with original translations (just as with original or urtext music).  if you want to be all scholarly - you can argue semantics.  that is not my purpose and never has been.  prometheus, you wouldn't even argue with me if i tried to because you would see soon enough that i am not a theologian. 

[Waldszenen]

Of all the arguments/discussions in this forum, I can say that they're equally-supported on both sides. Except unfortunately, Thalbergmad (or however you spell that name) wins three gold medals yet again for displaying sheer ignorance and stubbornness - please, at least do some sort of research (which a ten year old knows how to do) before you post your pathetic arguments (I think my primary school debating team did better).

[prometheus]

Ok, the Ontological argument. Basically it comes down to this.

1. God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. God exists.

Or the Descartes way of formulating it:
1. I exist
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.


To be honest I don't understand how one can think that this works. I don't think someone can possess 'all perfection'. Just as I think god can never be 'allmighty'. I don't think that the fact that we can imagine something means it should also exist. I don't think that when something is perfect that means it must also exist. I also don't think that existance is a property of perfect.

There are more problems with this argument. Descartes claims he can imagine a supreme being. I don't believe him. I don't think the human mind can comprehend what a supreme perfect being would be. Yes, we can use and understand the words, in the same sense that we can understand the words 'pink and invisible unicorn'. But then try to imagine this unicorn. Can't be done.

Also, one can use 'object overload'.

1) The greatest possible piece of music is perfect.
2) Existance is a property of perfection.
3) Thus it exists.

Does that work? It is not for nothing that Descartes added 'we can imagine'. But obviously one cannot imagine the greatest and totally perfect piece of music. If you can it would mean you can just write it out and no one ever has to write another piece of music. No one ever has to listen to something other than this perfect piece. Does this make sense? Do you think such a piece can exist? I find it silly. Just as I find it silly to think a perfect entity can exist. Also, if we can't imagine a perfect piece of music we can also not imagien a perfect entity.

I should also note that little people today take this argument seriously. Just like little people today take Descartes seriously, eventhough he was an important figure in his time.

I have seen many of these arguments and I think they are all silly. And that includes those that try to prove god does not exist. They are just as silly.

You don't prove the existence of things through these kinds of logical deduction. You prove things by postulating theories based on evidence. And then failing to refute them.

[prometheus]

but, i still say that the romans used christianity 'conveniently'

All institutions of power use religion conveniently. Now when it comes to the christian people living inside the empire...

yes, they had greek gods (with an s).

So if you are a polytheist you aren't religious? Compared to us today the roman people were very very superstitious and very very religious.

and, if you do not think the calendar was suddenly changed - WHY is there BC and AD  (before Christ and after Christ).  explain why the calendar has stayed this  way until 2006 (approx) years after Christ?  if it is not important - then you didn't give a reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus#Anno_Domini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#History_of_Anno_Domini

It should also be noted that people think Christ was born 4 BC or 8 BC. So christ was born before Christ. Also, people use CE and BCE. So what does it still have to do with Christ?

ps  i do understand why people cannot accept 'religion' as it typically comes packaged.  but, with the bible - you have words that you can translate back to hebrew or greek - and you can find out a lot with original translations.

No you can't do that. You can't go back to the original bible by just translating back to the language or origin. Obviously this is not possible.

[BoliverAllmon]

Hey prometheus, may I ask what your views are on the Ontological agrument? I am not saying this is why I believe in God but I'm interesed in what you think of it. (I'll take a guess and say you disagree)

P.S Hasn't China encountered a rapid growth in Christianity due to the house church movement? I thought I saw an estimated population of 100 million. Granted, China has something like 1.3 billion people but I still think it's significant

yeah China has the fastest growing christian population.

[berceuse]

Just to be clear, I in no way believe Onological proof by using AxiomS5 from modal logic is any sort of legitamate reason for believing in God. It was simply just a topic of discussion. But, as a stated before, I don't think the Christian God can not be fully understood. I am reminded of when Dante Alighieri was writing The Divine Comedy and he was at a loss for words when trying to describe the beatific vision while, at the same time, knowing he is "not capable of any greater experience."

[pianistimo]

in relating the nature of God, often Christians refer to the bible as it was put together in 1611 by king james.  before that, the bishops bible of 1568.  at least that's what i read in my new american standard bible.  the reason i like this translation is that it seems quite true to text generally, and the commentary lets you know if there is some semantic difference to check out.

the apostles creed (from the original apostles) ended up being much simpler and direct than any other creed about God and His nature.  I Timothy 6:13 'i charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to ALL things (by which everything continues to live!), and of Jesus Christ, who testified the good confession before pontius pilate, that yoiu keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time -- He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see.  To Him be honor and eternal dominion!  amen

you can see that this creed is first about God (the alpha and omega) and His Son Christ.  then - after the dash - it returns to the topic of God the Father to whom all things return after the 1,000 year reign of Christ.  all things are subsumed into the eternal realm.  how can we fully understand all this, since we are not spirit yet and cannot see God.  but, someday we will see Him and meet Him face to face. 

i kind of just realized that the promise (matthew 5: that the pure in heart will see God - means that some will be judged and found wanting and not see God (ever).  seeing God is a condition of surrender to His majesty and will.  once we surrender - He gives us eternal life, a crown (power to rule with Him), and responsibility.  sort of like on the job.  if you refuse to do the dirty work first - you stay a peon.  if you are willing to do the job and whatever it takes - you rise to the 'wheat' position instead of the 'chaff.'

that's how i understand the bible texts about seeing and knowing God. the more we obey Him- the more He allows us to 'know' Him.  it's just that Christians will not even see Him until the ressurrection.

[pianistimo]

keep in mind that this is my perception of what i read.  sometimes i become argumentative over semantics with my husband - but he usually has to patiently explain things 3-4 times until i understand his points of view.  for instance - the title 'only begotten Son.'  so i say, 'how can He be begotten and exist from time immemorial?'  and, he explains that He existed before all things but was begotten by God at the time He came in human form to be the Word made flesh. 

not understanding the concept of God is mentioned in this scripture:  'in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

these points make clear that we have to ASK for understanding.  we won't naturally have it.  why else would the Lord's prayer contain 'lead us not into temptation.'  there is another 'god' that is constantly doing that in our lives.  the true God would never do that.  that is why he reminds us in the Lord's prayer - so that we are not 'blinded' by another seeming 'light' that turns to darkness. 

in terms of BCE (before common era)  - the common era is still counted as ending at Christ's death.  it would not change the date of the calendar at all.  but, in revelations - changes in the times and dates of the calendar is prophecied.  why else, but to erase all idea of religion and Christ and replace it with a government of man. 

[prometheus]

in terms of BCE (before common era)  - the common era is still counted as ending at Christ's death.  it would not change the date of the calendar at all.  but, in revelations - changes in the times and dates of the calendar is prophecied.  why else, but to erase all idea of religion and Christ and replace it with a government of man. 

UUh, 1 AD is when Christ is supposed to be born. But everyone recognises that if Jesus actually existed he must have been born before 1 AD. The most common date is probably 4 BC.

No one knows when Christ was cruxified. Most popular is that Jesus was 36 years old. Some say that Jesus was 40 years old, hinting at the symbolism of that number.

So in a  sense using CE en BCE has nothing to do with Christ. 1 CE is not when Christ was born or died. CE means Common Era so that has no relevence to Christ either.

[pianistimo]

it used to.  AD means after the death.  but of course, if that is changed, too - it will be CE  (common era)  common to what?  why separate the two?  is it because something awesome happened inbetween.  i think so.

luke 3:21-23 mentions that when Christ began his ministry, that he was around age 30.  if you record the times of the feast day repetitions - and other items - approximately three years transpired for his ministry.  that would make him around 33 years old at the time of death.  this is my speculation as i haven't chronologized it myself.  but, he wasn't particularly old.  i would say 40 is too old according to the lack of evidence to point to it.

[panic]

Manmade. Fear used as tactic to develop morality. 2,000 year old hand picked madness. Outdated ridiculous theories. Brainwashed from birth. Spread like virus. Modern caveman thought. Subconcious splintering. Limiting factors of technology. Boundaries, not infinity. Money.

Continue.

Humility. Reason why a lot of people don't steal when no one is looking. Reason why a lot of people appreciate the food on their table at night. Probably all Western music. Cathedrals. Architecture in general. Huge portion of Western art. Reason why many people are good, honest, and hardworking at the end of the day instead of being selfish, materialistic bastards.

What.

[prometheus]

it used to.  AD means after the death.

It means Anno Domini, latin for 'year of the lord'. That 'After Death' part was a joke, right?

[Waldszenen]

Humility. Reason why a lot of people don't steal when no one is looking. Reason why a lot of people appreciate the food on their table at night. Probably all Western music. Cathedrals. Architecture in general. Huge portion of Western art. Reason why many people are good, honest, and hardworking at the end of the day instead of being selfish, materialistic bastards.

What.

Touche.

[brewtality]

Humility. Reason why a lot of people don't steal when no one is looking. Reason why a lot of people appreciate the food on their table at night. Probably all Western music. Cathedrals. Architecture in general. Huge portion of Western art. Reason why many people are good, honest, and hardworking at the end of the day instead of being selfish, materialistic bastards.

What.

I disagree, in particular I find the last assertion laughable.

[prometheus]

Because? Neither of you are making any arguments.


Actually, I think that not being a monotheist helps one being humble. We are either special creations by the almighty, containing divinity. Or we are animals like any other.

Humility isn't submitting to god and arrogantly ignore everything else, which some christians do but others do not. For example those that do feel they can ignore the enviroment.


If fear for god is the only reason christians don't steal then they are really immoral creatures. It has nothing to do with humility.
Same with selfishness. If monotheists aren't selfish because they want to go to heaven then they are. There are people in the world that aren't selfish and that don't expect any reward. They expect that after they die their life 'wouldn't have mattered'. But because they live they have decide to make the most of it and to live the way they see fit. Just because. Not because they want eternal bliss. Being good for the sake of being good is impossible with Christianity.

Every human is capable of appreciating creativity and every human is able to comprehend music. You don't need to be a monotheist to be able to do that.

Actually, claiming that god has something to do with appreciating these things, because of humility, is actually not very humble, to put it mildly.

Also, you should have used 'the reason why'. For some 'reason' also has another meaning. It's a bit confusing this way.

[brewtality]

Reason why many people are good, honest, and hardworking at the end of the day instead of being selfish, materialistic bastards.

2 possibly interpretations of this equivocal statement:

1) Christianity transforms people who are selfish, materialistic bastards into good, honest and hardworking people.

Or

2) Christians are good, honest and hardworking, all other peoples are selfish, materialistic bastards. 

The former reflects poorly on Christians, as it appears they (or at least ‘many’ of them) need their faith to be good, honest and hardworking. I don’t believe that faith is necessary for one to be a good person. Hence my disagreement, if we follow this reading. The latter interpretation seems very pretentious to me; suggesting that humans are inherently selfish etc and that Christians operate on a higher moral plane. I don’t subscribe to such a cynical view of human nature. Based on my own observation there is a not insignificant number of non-believers who are good, honest and hardworking people. 

[pianistimo]

i go with #1  (i mean #1 of brewtalities assertions).  changing the term * for b*.  and yet, i don't think that baptism alone makes you utilize the Holy Spirit.  you have to actively seek God through the Holy Spirit by prayer.  the disciples used to pray regularly about three times per day.  everyone would go together around 3pm to pray together.  somewhat similar to middle eastern prayer times, i guess.  anyway, holiness is almost a job.  you are changing your focus from what you want to what you can understand from God's word that He wants.

and, regarding prometheus correct latin terminology for AD - it still turns out in english to be after the death of Christ (which WAS the year of the Lord).  everyone sees things in their own language. 

i wish i knew latin.  might try to sometime soon. 

[prometheus]

Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE)

[mephisto]

That 'After Death' part was a joke, right?

I am sure it wasn`t.

[prometheus]

You are probably right. I was just trying to sound less cynical. Actually this is getting ridiculous. I have been thinking for a long time to just start to ignore all the non-sense she spews out every once in a while. With that I mean historical and scientific claims she makes. But I found it disrespectful to just give up on her. I do not like the idea of concluding that some people are beyond reason and that they just don't deserve knowledge.

I guess we have now reached the point where she just deserves that disrespect.

[nanabush]

Manmade. Fear used as tactic to develop morality. 2,000 year old hand picked madness. Outdated ridiculous theories. Brainwashed from birth. Spread like virus. Modern caveman thought. Subconcious splintering. Limiting factors of technology. Boundaries, not infinity. Money.

Continue.

amen,

Maybe not as harsh as the way you describe it, but I can say I'm not the most religious person around

[berceuse]

I don’t believe that faith is necessary for one to be a good person.

I hope you aren't implying that atheists are faithless. They are exerting the same amount of trust and confidence into "a lack of something" as Christians place in God. They are also using as many speculations in their arguments as you claim Christians to do. So there really is no way for anyone to be "faithless".

[maul]

Humility. Reason why a lot of people don't steal when no one is looking. Reason why a lot of people appreciate the food on their table at night. Probably all Western music. Cathedrals. Architecture in general. Huge portion of Western art. Reason why many people are good, honest, and hardworking at the end of the day instead of being selfish, materialistic bastards.

Funny how I have all those qualities without having to be afraid of going to hell in order for me to possess them... and a majority of your fellow spongeheads I have known are actually the opposite of that. Why? Because no matter what they do "Jesus will forgive me. He died for my sins. There is nothing wrong with being sinful because we are expected to sin and I can just utter some words and I am forgiven! YAY! *fart*".

[berceuse]

... and a majority of your fellow spongeheads I have known are actually the opposite of that. Why? Because no matter what they do "Jesus will forgive me. He died for my sins. There is nothing wrong with being sinful because we are expected to sin and I can just utter some words and I am forgiven! YAY! *fart*".

I agree with you to an extent. Some people do use their religion as an exuse to do whatever they feel like. But I think that is more of a critisism against the individual person than it is against the Church. I have never encountered a church that preaches that sort of idealism. I think it is more a question of their maturity as a person than it is a misunderstanding of their faith. It sounds to me that you have more of a problem with some of the people who follow the religion than it is the religion itself. Again, I do agree with you to an extent (if that is indeed the case). Sometimes I will be in Church, deep in prayer, and I get the strong sense that people are uncomfortable around me because of it. And I do often question why they are there if they just go through the motions. I think prometheus made an excellent point very early on in this discussion, saying that blindly complying with a religion is ultimatley harmful. But I think that can be said about politics, nationality, government, etc as well. If that was the point he was trying make, than I couldn't agree more.