OH MY GOODNESS!

[asyncopated]

for instance, would we go to 'hell' for wearing clothing that is mixed (wool and linen or something)?  no.  but, breathing properties of 100% cotton are sure to keep you much cooler than mixing it with nylon.  keeps you from excessive sweating.  this doesn't affect your neighbor - unless you're smelling to high heaven.  i'd say it's an important rule for pubecscent teenagers at least with their underwear.

Haha... ermmm ok, does he say what you should wear when you go into space?  Unfortuantely wool, linen or cotton doesn't really cut it. 

Well I'm way past being a pubescent teenager.

now, adultery, or murder - i think there's at least all the points you once had - kinda eliminated in one fell swoop.  you start at zero again and have to work your way up.  saint paul killed christians, and he also had a 'thorn in the flesh.'  could it have been homosexual tendencies.  it could have been - or something physical as a pain or problem medically.  who knows?  but, there's some scripture that says Christ was tempted in all ways as we are - and resisted sinning.  if he COULD do it - and was human at that point - then we have an example to follow.

The problem that I've state is exactly what you have echoed.  Who knows?  Jesus did not write down all his feelings... so we don't know exactly what he was tempted by.  Even if we did.  He did not have a computer.  You assume that using a computer is not a sin (which is reasonable) but we don't really know if it is or not, because he was never tempted to waste time on a computer. 

What I'm trying to say is that things do change and there are now situations with new ways of doing things that were not captured in the bible, the best we can do is extrapolate and as time goes on the extrapolation will be poorer and poorer because there will be things that we can do that does not really fit. 

For example, if girl before marriage has virtual sex with her boyfriend is that a sin? It's certainly happening into our society today.  Techincally, no sex before marriage, but this is not really sex is it? 

just as a military leader is best believed if he leads and doesn't hide behind his group.  now, i don't think religion is particularly militaristic (although i think sometimes i might accidentally give than impression of an 'iron fist' type belief) - but, i do think that if one has a leader they TRUST implicitly - they are more likely to follow orders.  i've seen and experienced so much of God's love in my life - that i do not go around fearing if God will be unfair to me.  He is and has been entirely fair to me.

Again, I don't really see the world as fair or unfair, more like things just happen.  I don't think that there is a reason.  I've learnt very young that life is intrinsicly unfair.  There is always some angle you can take where you can argue that the balance is not quite right.

So I don't think a question of fair or unfair is useful anymore.  Instead, I ask things like can i improve the situation in some way? or what can i do differently? 

I've been in the army.  I don't really trust my superiours. I thinking soldier is a good soldier -- not a view echoed by many.  

i've had many things go 'wrong' in my life - but whenever i do not doubt -- i see a double blessing for the hurts and problems.  even when the problems are caused by our own sins.  God will always forgive.  always helps.  never abandons.  i believe satan to be the opposite.  he gets us into trouble.  leaves us there stranded.  or worse yet, dying.  spiritually and sometimes physically in the wrong environment (whether addictions or whatever).  so - there are two god's.  one that judges rightly - and one that makes one 'feel right' at the time - and terrible later.

Optimism is a good thing.  If you manage to understand god in some way through trials, good for you.  I'm more a pragmatist.  I have days that are completely dire, and days that are good -- i think everyone does -- but I don't consider that god's doing.  It's just part and parcel of living. 

sorry to be so preachy.  i know you don't need it.  you are way smarter than me - and i recognize it.  and, i take your questions as ones that are always very well thought and very valid.  maybe someone else has a different point of view.  that's ok, too.  not everyone thinks bonus points are fair (i mean 1000 for athiests wouldn't exactly be fair to christians - but then - we'd be told about the prodigal son - and just to shut up - while you get a party).

You don't have to apologise.  I asked the questions.  If you have some insight, and are happy to share it with me (which you sometimes... I do learn somethings from you).  I'm happy to listen.  After all I did ask you to comment.  I'm not smarter  -- at least i think it is really irrelevant here -- as you can see there are a lot of thing I just can't get my head around. 

[pianistimo]

i forgot to say - about the muslim question - i believe, personally, that Allah, and God are one and the same.  now, the prophet muhammed may well have preached a gospel to the muslim's - but i am not as knowlegeable about the koran as the bible.  from what i understand, Christ died for all - every single person on the planet.  if abraham had two sons (ishmael and issac) - then those two sons are sons of blessing!  the arabs should know in their hearts that Jesus died for them, too, just as much as any other child of God. 

i think it is a misnomer that God plays favorites.  he picked the israelites to be an example - but it proved difficult for them.  it wasn't easy.  it wasn't like God picked them for an easy route.  it was a very difficult.  that is why they are called 'first-fruits' - as with a garden.  but, you don't pick the first of the garden and leave everything else.  it is simply more of the same garden!  we have the example of israel and the law.  then , we have Christ and everyone who is 'grafted' into the tree of life.  the israelites were blessed for listening and obeying God.  how much more - people who willingly choose - instead of being drafted.  it's like the military again.  if you are drafted - how does the army know you want to be there?  they don't.  if you enlist.  you are making your own choice.

now, a christian soldier doesn't have to fight.  if the muslims and israelis were truly faithful to the SAME GOD - they wouldn't have to fight either.  God would fight their battles for them.  i think He will fight at the 'last day' - the day of judgement - against entire nations.  that is a powerful God.  i wouldn't want him whimpy and saying - well - it's ok if you kill each other.  it's alright.  just mend the fence and jump on over here.  i think he'll call each person up - and ask them to watch a short video clip of themselves (possibly murdering others- or the most embarrassing moments of their lives - doing random things that don't represent God's ways) and then say 'what do you have to say for yourself.'  but, with christians - you have the option of 'erasing the tape.'  throwing it out as far as east is from the west.  by repenting and telling God you don't purposely want to sin.  and, asking for help NOT to sin.  that is the help of the Holy Spirit.

as i understand it- there is NO creed in the bible you must say to be saved excepting the one that is said at baptism.

I timothy 3:16 mentions a 'common confession' - He who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.'

also, john 1:14 'and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.'

heb 4:15 - 'for we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.  let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may recieve mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.'

[asyncopated]

now, a christian soldier doesn't have to fight.  if the muslims and israelis were truly faithful to the SAME GOD - they wouldn't have to fight either.  God would fight their battles for them.  i think He will fight at the 'last day' - the day of judgement - against entire nations.  that is a powerful God.

Even though I think that your theology is rather faulty. If more people did think like that, the world would be a much more peaceful place.

as i understand it- there is NO creed in the bible you must say to be saved excepting the one that is said at baptism.

Yep.  I think we refer to the same creed.  I write it in latin because I can identify with it the easiest having sung many many masses.

(i mean 1000 for athiests wouldn't exactly be fair to christians - but then - we'd be told about the prodigal son - and just to shut up - while you get a party).

lol .  I think you missed the minus sign.  (minus) -1000 points.

[donjuan]

Heb. 11:13 'By faith we understand that the universe was fashioned by the Word of God, so that the visible came forth from the unvisible.' 

"Unvisible," huh?

[ramseytheii]

as i understand it- there is NO creed in the bible you must say to be saved excepting the one that is said at baptism.

Romans 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Pride is a sin!

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Foods for thought :
https://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/index.html

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

We also have historical accounts of faith ie Moses and the isrealites crossing the red sea

Which accounts. As far as I know there is no account of Isrealites in Egypt. There is no account of Isrealites living for 40 years in teh Sinai desert. Let alone of an account of a whole Egyptian armpy plus the Pharaoh being drowned in the Red Sea.

So please show me these historical accounts.

so really  i dont see the problem with beleving things that are unseen - it seems this is harder from an athiestic stance.

So do you have any more views for which you have no evidence?

...but please accept your assertions that there is no God is to me as irrational as my assertion is to you that there is a God.

How can you say something like this and not blink? I don't have faith. How can I be irrational because I lack a faith in a belief? Are you irrational when you lack the belief that there is a invisible monster under your bed?

So less of the, 'thats bull----' or 'retarded' etc please.

I never said that a belief in god is retarded. I said that your theological view is retarded. And I know it is shared with more people. The idea that 'good' people will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus. And that 'evil' people will go to heaven if they do.

Just because its a different view, because you may not be aware but to english first language speakers those terms are extremely disrespectfull.

They are meant that way. I can't have respect for such a view. But you are more than just that view. So that doesn't mean I disrespect you. I never insulted you.

Would you unconditionally respect all views of all people? No matter how strange? I don't.

[pianowelsh]

If you mean to be disrespectfull then you shouldnt post on an open forum prometheus. Im sorry but people are not putting forward views which arent dearly held and reasoned. It is YOUR duty to respect the view that is put forward even if you dont hold it. Which is why I fundamentally disagree with your attitude to gungho throw out any view you dont hold to be true..especially as 99% of the time you make no effort to reason the view being put forward. You continue to, I believe deliberately misconstrue my statement that a 'selfrighteous' (not Good - as you say) person will go to hell if they dont Trust in Christ and an Evil 'forgiven/repentant' person will go to heaven if they do come to know that Jesus Christ has made the payment for their sin.  Regarding your other petty jibes - I shall ignore them as you have no evidence to the contrary either which puts both our views on a level par.
I respect that people have reasons for holding their beliefs. They may be sincerely wrong but whilst disagreeing with them I hope that I still value their comments and recognise that in most statements there is some truth however skewed. I would certainly never tell anyone what they believed was bull**** or any such similarly disespectfull insult. You get very cross when people dont accept your views you wouldnt like it if people started insulting you. You must be aware that ones religion cannot be separated form who you are - its integral...maybe you learnt something today??!
Anyway..I realise I must seem way out to you prometheus so there are no hard feelings. Enjoy your winter festivities and I hope you have a Happy new year too! where ever you are?!?!

[prometheus]

You continue to, I believe, deliberately misconstrue my statement that a 'selfrighteous' (not Good - as you say) person will go to hell if they dont Trust in Christ and an Evil 'forgiven/repentant' person will go to heaven if they do come to know that Jesus Christ has made the payment for their sin.

I though you proposed that idea and when I asked you to confirm it you did. I said that that idea is retarded. If you don't support that idea then what is the problem?

You get very cross when people dont accept your views you wouldnt like it if people started insulting you

I never insulted you. And I don't care if people share my views or not. My problem is with dishonest people and people that twist logic to desperately try to support their god delusion.

I don't like Mozart. If other people do like him then that's wonderful. I honestly envy them.
But don't claim that Mozart came from Mars and that he is the source of all music ever conceived, before and after his human-form incarnation, by 'divine inspiration'.

And then if you claim that when people don't accept this idea they will go to hell then I will call that retarded.

Do you even realise the implications such an idea? Wouldn't it be disrespectful and even hateful to tell someone he is going to burn forever in hell?


You are under the impression that for some reason your faith cannot be questioned and should not be disresepcted.
And that is part of the problem of religion. If someone tells me he or she sees fairies then I will tell them they need mental help. Why? Because they probably need it. I couldn't justify doing anything else. Same with religion. I am not going to respect their primitive superstition.
I am not going to respect the distorted self-image someone with anorexia has. Same with religion.

And if you think I insult such people... Well, then I am at a loss.

Regarding your other petty jibes - I shall ignore them as you have no evidence to the contrary either which puts both our views on a level par.

You know this comment makes no sense. So please don't make such comments. There is no evidence for your faith. And I don't have one.

Basically you are saying that I am insulting you and that all the other things I say can be ignored. Both are false.

[asyncopated]

You are under the impression that for some reason your faith cannot be questioned and should not be disresepcted.
And that is part of the problem of religion. If someone tells me he or she sees fairies then I will tell them they need mental help. Why? Because they probably need it. I couldn't justify doing anything else. Same with religion. I am not going to respect their primitive superstition.
I am not going to respect the distorted self-image someone with anorexia has. Same with religion.

And if you think I insult such people... Well, then I am at a loss.

I understand where you are coming from.  It is the hardline approach similar to the one taken by richard dawkins, who certianly has my respect, and whist we are on the subject you do to, for taking such a stance, sticking to it and defending it well -- I would have chosen my language more carefully (i.e. more pc), but that's just me.  I think people stop listening when they feel that they are insulted.  My main aim is to try and communicate (however feeble my attempt my be).  Dawkins is right when he says there is a skewness when we do talk about religion, and I suppose this is part of your drive to undo that.

I have a few comments.  In all of the examples you give, there may be a missing element that seperates religion from other forms of delusion.  The little dfiference is a matter of choice.   Often someone who is schizophrenic or anorexic, does not have control, and has essentially no choice.  It is conditioned behavior.  You are implying that this  is the same with religion.  I do admit that there is some about of mass psycology involved, and very much also involved how the mind was at one stage or another "enlightened", such that people go to the extent that they chose to believe almost blindly, losing the ability to question (which I think we are born with).  But still, I think they did choose and that's the difference.   

I also think it is really this one element that seperates believing in fairies as irrational and believing in god as rational.

[prometheus]

I didn't say that religious people are similar to people who are schizophrenic or anorexic. I argued against the idea proposed: "Respect other people's views, no matter what".

I am not going to respect all people's views. Not because I am angry, not because I want to insult them. But because I think I have good reasons to not only disagree but to also to speak up to them.

I don't see why that is political incorrect.


The thing I called retarded is the 'free ticket to heaven' open to everyone by just accepting Christ as a savior in combination with the idea that all who don't go to hell to burn forever in eternal pain.

What I also called retarded is the justification of murder of babies ans children in the bible on the basis that everything god does is by definition 'just'.

[prometheus]

It is conditioned behavior.  You are implying that this  is the same with religion. 

[...] 

I also think it is really this one element that seperates believing in fairies as irrational and believing in god as rational.

You do realise that almost always someone adopts the religion of either their parents or their commumity? Eventhough you misunderstood my point I do think believing in god is rarely a choose. And on top of that Christianity is a fear-based religion.

Maybe you could argue that because children are taught to believe in god it is not their irrationality but the children's inborn characteristic to believe anything their parents tell them without questioning.
Belief in fairies is generally the product of a persons irrationality. But even these people take this belief from someone else. It is not their original idea.

You actually suggest that questioning things is inborn. Maybe it is partly. But it is not active in children. Imagine a child has to question and thus test out every advice their parents give them.

Children naturally don't question their parents. If they do they will get hurt and have a risk of dying. Children that question their parents are less 'fit' in a Darwinistic sense.


I do think that people are born with the potentional, and only the potentional, to be reasonable, skeptical critical thinkers. But this has to be learned and trained.

[pianistimo]

i disagree that children who question their parents are less 'fit' in a darwinistic sense.  it goes against the idea of 'survival of the fittest.'  everyone for themselves.  the selfish gene.  why would anyone care WHAT the parents thought?

in the bible - there is a command - 'you shall honor your father and mother ...so that your days may be long upon the earth...'  but this is seen as something outmoded and outdated.  why?  because people think they are mini-adults at 12 - 13 years of age.

if you consider that 18 years of age is mature adulthood to most people - that is like 1/3 or /4 of your entire lifespan.  you have the other 2/3 to do as you please.  so - if your parents teach you about evolution or about God or about both (as i happen to have done - by teaching them about God at home - and they get evolution at school) - then they will have a basis for a RATIONAL decision at full maturity.

now, with my children - one of the rules is - you have to go to school to live here.  if i suddenly said 'you can do anything you want'  THEY WOULD.  i think parents carry a heavy responsiblity to help their children see BOTH SIDES.  to me, it is black and white- the true and the false.  and then - be able to make a good judgement. 

but, if we have 'selfish- genes'  there is really no judgement to make.  we let scientists make our judgments by declaring us infit for free-will.  that the universe is preplanned and we are just fulfilling our selfish desires until we die.  forever in hell is not in the bible.  it is the SECOND DEATH.  no more.  burned up.  it is dying a second time.  that is what christians warn others about - because it is like giving up your 'birthright' for a bowl of soup.  this is what satan is about!  he doesn't want you to see ANY FUTURE besides the one you physically see on this earth.  he wants you to believe there is nothing afterwards- therefore - do anything selfish that you want to.  it's ok.

that includes virtual sex - as someone pointed out accurately.  that women should not care if they expose themselves to 100 or 1000 people.  and that people who take advantage of the sex industry can pass out pictures of people randomly and that that person's integrity - (whether the picture was taken in a private location) rules out any desire of the woman or man to retain back the picture.  i feel terribly for models - because i think that modeling in and of itself is not bad - but the idea that everyone owns every picture IS bad.  if a model does not like a picture or feels it is indecent and doesn't want it published - do other people care?  they want to make money.  the sex industry is money making - and selfish.

if God wrote int he bible that men and women should not expose their nakedness - then he meant it in ANY form.  whether they are virtually having sex or personally -doesn't matter.  it is sin.  and, according to the bible - they should repent and wait for marriage.  now, i realize children don't see the consequences of their actions - and after a first experience of something that feels or looks good - the enjoyment outweighs worry about std's.  but, wade horn (as ramseytheii pointed out in his article) secretary for children and families at the us department of heath and human services - says 'abstinence only' promotes a better health for young people.  'the longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sexual partners they have, and the less risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.'

if sex classes did mention abstience (as i'm pretty sure they do in pennsylvania) then handing out condoms would not mean - 'go to it.'  it would mean - if you get yourself really worked up and make a mistake before marriage - it is better not to share this mistake with your future marital parter.  ie.  herpes, chlamydia - pretty common, and a lot of others. you are doubling and tripling your sexual std's with each person you are with.  how do you know if they are honest about how many people they've slept with?  honesty is hard to teach young people sometimes - but i think the very best way is for people to realize that we all have weaknesses - but in those moments - be CAREFUL.  do not risk ALL (your health, someone else's health, someone elses privacy, your privacy, even your skin condition - as many std's are very hard on the skin in all places).  you can see people who have sufferred terribly with visible scarring from having too many sexual partners with many different diseases. 

sorry to go on - but i have one teenager and one almost teenager - and i thinkt he best way to avoid these things is to give them a good self identity. t hat means to help them expect the best for themselves by taking care of themselves and their health and sexual purity.  i think girls should be taught how a guy sHOULD treat them.  not with disrepsect.  and a guy should be taught how to take care of girls.  not to take advantage of them - but to actually control the situation by what they do and say.  for instance - if a girl is hot for a guy - for him to say 'i like you so much - and adore you - but i think that you are too young for sex.  i think we should wait.  will you wait for me and with me?'  i think that is very romantic and much more interesting than letting all at 13-14 years of age.  what if the girl gets pregnant.  then what do you do.  both people are really messed up.

[prometheus]

i disagree that children who question their parents are less 'fit' in a darwinistic sense.  it goes against the idea of 'survival of the fittest.'  everyone for themselves.  the selfish gene.  why would anyone care WHAT the parents thought?

Things like:
-don't touch fire. It is hot.
-don't wander off alone. You will get lost.
-don't cross the street without looking. There are cars.
-don't walk around running with a scissors. It is dangerous.
-don't drink Chlorine. It is poisonous.
-don't walk through the city in the middle of the night. That is dangerous.

Obviously in the world in which we evolved, small primitive tribes, this was even more true. The child would just lack experience to survive. So it needs to follow it's parents blindly.

Children that don't listen to their parents have to learn all these lessons themselves. This means they have a high risc of injury or even death. They are less fit. Survival of the fittest.

[pianistimo]

you've just disproven the selfish gene.  the selfish gene is with you from birth.   you kill your parents and eat them when it suits you.

[prometheus]

You make no sense at all.

[pianistimo]

ok. that was a bit far fetched.  but what about the menedez brothers.  i mean, they killed their parents.  obviously, the selfish genes were to blame. 

[prometheus]

I don't see how it would be in the interest of genes to have parents killed.

There is a 50% chance that a parent also had the same gene. One of them at least has to share a gene.

So the gene would basically be killing itself. That is not  a 'selfish gene' in the way Dawkins proposed. It is the opposite.

Again, the idea is that a gene is being selfish by invoking altruistic towards those individuals that share genes.

[pianistimo]

ok.  explain the selfish gene.  (though i've personally i've never heard anyone else say genes had anything to do with the brain.  the spirit.  the consciousness).

why else would God give laws.  why has mankind had laws.  selfish genes eliminate the need for law.  (granting the person in the know - that doesn't believe a word of their own *** to control others).

[asyncopated]

ok.  explain the selfish gene.  (though i've personally i've never heard anyone else say genes had anything to do with the brain.  the spirit.  the consciousness).

The selfish gene has nothing to do with personal selfishness.  It's not a conscions thing.  The selfish genes are those that allows a particular species a better chance of self preservation.  E.g. Sharper clarws, bigger teeth, stronger legs. 

When we say human beings are bucking this trend it's simply to say that we are not concerned as much with self presevation as we were a long time back (just pretend you believe in evolution for a while otherwise this is hard to explalin.) 

The trend that helped us to overcome our selfish genes is natural selection that enhanced the brain -- the primary reason why this first happened is because it did enhance survivability.  This allowed us to use tools, learn to live in large groups  (thus look out for one another), understand agriculture and farming so that we no longer need to be substitant framers roaming from place to place. Later this same development (bigger brains), gave us ways to create even larger civilasations with sanitation, aquaductes etc. 

Somehow, somewhere a long the way, we seem to have made a progression that allows us to do things like music and art, which have no direct impact on self-presevation or propogating our selfish genes.

You are bucking the trend, because you currently not worried if there will be food on the table for christmas, or if you will be eaten alive by the lion the raoms your street. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

[donjuan]

post deleted

[asyncopated]

that includes virtual sex - as someone pointed out accurately.  that women should not care if they expose themselves to 100 or 1000 people.  and that people who take advantage of the sex industry can pass out pictures of people randomly and that that person's integrity - (whether the picture was taken in a private location) rules out any desire of the woman or man to retain back the picture.  i feel terribly for models - because i think that modeling in and of itself is not bad - but the idea that everyone owns every picture IS bad.  if a model does not like a picture or feels it is indecent and doesn't want it published - do other people care?  they want to make money.  the sex industry is money making - and selfish.

I don't really want to get into a discussion about the sex industry.  The original idea is this, a couple going out, decides not to have physical sex, but occasionally does have virtual sex -- they don't see any harm in that.  The both do not have a camara, but she discribes he state of mind amongst in lucid detail to him and he does the same back. 

I can see why for the guy, this might be considered a sin since it is still technically masturbation.

For for the girl, I'm not so sure if this is a sin.  Even though they do enter into a modern version of what is essentially a sexual act, there is no physical contact, or nudity involved.

What does the bible say about this.  Essentially, is talking dirty sinful?  Can you give me a direct quote that shows it is a sin?

sorry to go on - but i have one teenager and one almost teenager - and i thinkt he best way to avoid these things is to give them a good self identity. t hat means to help them expect the best for themselves by taking care of themselves and their health and sexual purity.  i think girls should be taught how a guy sHOULD treat them.  not with disrepsect.  and a guy should be taught how to take care of girls.  not to take advantage of them - but to actually control the situation by what they do and say.  for instance - if a girl is hot for a guy - for him to say 'i like you so much - and adore you - but i think that you are too young for sex.  i think we should wait.  will you wait for me and with me?'  i think that is very romantic and much more interesting than letting all at 13-14 years of age.  what if the girl gets pregnant.  then what do you do.  both people are really messed up.

Yes I agree.  It really depends on how you say these things with teenages.  From my experience talking to friends, if you as a parent decrees that a teenager must save him or herself, this is essentially dangling temptation front of them and there is a tendency to defy you just to prove that they can. 

I think currently that the best way to approach this is with a certian amount of openess and frankness.  Also, they have to know that no matter what happens, whether you agree or disagree with their actions, you will be there for them. 

You and I probably grew up in a very different time.    The social pressures are different, what is acceptable and what is not is different. I think teenages nowadays get the short end of the draw.  There is a rediculous about of advertising out there and expectations from home and form school giving very mixed signals.  It's a difficult thing being a teenager. 

[asyncopated]

You do realise that almost always someone adopts the religion of either their parents or their commumity? Eventhough you misunderstood my point I do think believing in god is rarely a choose. And on top of that Christianity is a fear-based religion.

Yes.  I probably did misunderstand your point.  Hmm, we disagree on this one.  Maybe because of your social backgrouds, and company we keep.  Most of the religious people that I know have been thought from your. But most of them are also some of the smartest people that I know.  It seems to me odd that they would not naturally have questioned their faith. 

I guess there are alot of people out there as well, who do not question their faith and accept it because it has always been part of their lives.

Maybe you could argue that because children are taught to believe in god it is not their irrationality but the children's inborn characteristic to believe anything their parents tell them without questioning.
Belief in fairies is generally the product of a persons irrationality. But even these people take this belief from someone else. It is not their original idea.
You actually suggest that questioning things is inborn. Maybe it is partly. But it is not active in children. Imagine a child has to question and thus test out every advice their parents give them.

Children naturally don't question their parents. If they do they will get hurt and have a risk of dying. Children that question their parents are less 'fit' in a Darwinistic sense.


I do think that people are born with the potentional, and only the potentional, to be reasonable, skeptical critical thinkers. But this has to be learned and trained.

I think this is a very interesting thing to discuss.  Here is a little hypothesis.

Childern are born with a great potential to learn. They have to be.  That's the basic way the brain is wired. Because of this, they naturally ask questions about everything.  Remember the "why is the sky blue" type of question?  It's a natural curiosity of the world, stemming from innocences and a desire to understand.

You are right about parents.  Parents or elders supervising a child must be a genetically favourable thing.

Somehow along the way, we grow up.  In this, other things become more important.  We slowly stop questioning, because to some questions we get answers, to others, we just accept things as they are and to yet other questions, we know that there are no answers to.

Religion represents an answer in some form (I would say less an answer and more a negation of the question).  It addresses this intense desire to be curious in a rather odd fashion by giving comfort to some of the bigger questions that we, as a race consider important, and with that stops the need for questioning this.  In a sense it fills a gap.

When we can't make sense of things (can't get answers to questions that we want), religion seems to offer some sort of alternative that no other instituation (certainly not science) can.  A lot of people can't accept that things just are.  They need to know that in the end there is justice. In the end, there is a reason for them being here.  In accepting religion, they can stop questioning these things.

The other reason religion works is because there is a critical mass of people believing in this concept.  People are afraid of looking silly, and if there are enough people truely believing that the flying speghetti monster says that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42, it is then not a silly concept. Hence, the mass psycology thing.

These are rough ideas, so if you see any flaws or have something else to contribute, please add.

[thalbergmad]

jesus, god, bible, bible, god, god, jesus, bible, jesus, god, bible, bible, god, jesus, jesus, bible, god, god, bible, jesus, jesus, god, god, bible, bible, god, jesus, jesus, bible, god, god.

Best

Thal

[pianistimo]

i did just write about debussy.  me and a few others are having a competition of sorts to play 'the isle of joy.'  but i'm confused on the first two notes.  there's this trill that starts on C# but the trill marking has a sharp after it.  does this mean C# to D#?  i think it does because measure 9 has an obvious transition from this trill.  i guess i answered my own question.  thank you all very much.  now...back to the bible.  unless you want to talk about debussy and madame bardac - who - we might say - had a little fling on the isle of jersey and of which debussy got the idea to dedicate certain pages of this piece to her (or the memory of their outdoor/indoor/outoor excursions).

the only scriptures that i can see of the bible that would refute virtual sex would be where christ says it is not good to look with lust at a woman.  nowdays - that's an impossibility for either sex  i think.  as you say - billboards alone.  i mean you can't drive down the highway with a horse blindfold on.  although, i kind of like pennsylvania because they counter this stuff - by putting out their own billboards near their homes with bible verses.  (i haven't done this yet, ok thal)

and, i have no idea about talking.  i mean, king david wasn't a prude if he was spying on a woman taking a bath.  but, where it all went wrong is that lust - lead to sin for him.  he killed her husband.  that's where, imo, it all goes south.  if two people are unmarried - at least they have a chance not to hurt anyone else but themselves.  if they are truly stuck on each other - and give each other a thrill over the phone (as most teenagers are apt to do on their first love interest) it probably is a source of education.  i mean -what one person finds interesting and what the other one does.  but, if it leads to mentally only thinking about this all the time -then for teenagers, it might nix some schoolwork.

ok.  i'm really old fashioned.  i think we should have boys and girls schools.  i think we should have uniforms.  i think we should make sure they focus on education until at least 16-18 - then they can go wild (but hopefully not too wild).  as they do anyways.  but, i think the youngest segment would do well to have some kind of role models (and not hollywood models).  it's kind of a mixed message, right?!

but, for adults - i mean you have to date a few people to know exactly who you are looking for.  if they don't like the same things you do - you move on.  no hurt feelings if you haven't had an intimate personal relationship - which would mean much more than virtual.  but, it bothers me a little bit to hear of someone giving details of their most personal and intimate feelings  - because that, imo, should be saved for the person you really have feelings for.  it's a catch-22 - but not so bad. 

[thalbergmad]

i did just write about debussy.  me and a few others are having a competition of sorts to play 'the isle of joy.'  but i'm confused on the first two notes.  there's this trill that starts on C# but the trill marking has a sharp after it.  does this mean C# to D#?  i think it does because measure 9 has an obvious transition from this trill.  i guess i answered my own question.  thank you all very much.  now...back to the bible.  unless you want to talk about debussy and madame bardac - who - we might say - had a little fling on the isle of jersey and of which debussy got the idea to dedicate certain pages of this piece to her (or the memory of their outdoor/indoor/outoor excursions).

https://www.copecaredeal.org/deal/schizophrenia.asp

[pianistimo]

the part about remembering things clearly does ring a bell.  but, thal - what about you?  how do you characterize yourself.  i mean - having a friend by the name 'mental martin' also raises a red flag to me. 

[jpianoflorida]

jesus, god, bible, bible, god, god, jesus, bible, jesus, god, bible, bible, god, jesus, jesus, bible, god, god, bible, jesus, jesus, god, god, bible, bible, god, jesus, jesus, bible, god, god.

Best

Thal

keep repeating that thal.   Some of it might "sink in"   .    Ok, I'm just kidding around with you, well sorta!  have a great day!

[thalbergmad]

the part about remembering things clearly - does ring a bell.  but, thal - what about you?  how do you characterize yourself.  i mean - having a friend by the name 'mental martin' also raises a red flag to me. 

Well, mental is a delusion which is described in the book of judges by a 450 legged millipede.

I have proof of this because the red sea parted at the same time as god willed the walls of jericho to come tumbling down by the sound of bagpipes from the Gretna Green band. Of course, there is archeologial proof of this coz there is a piece of fossilized cows turd 6000 foot up a mountain in Turkey which was also mentioned in the Bible.

God, jesus, bible, bible, god, god, jesus, jesus.

My 5 year old is giving me a lot of trouble due to the graven images plastered on her wall. My husband thinks it is a good idea to start bible class as soon as possible, but i can't stop now as i have to get to the mall of 3 fishes for tonights meal (jesus will turn it into 3,000, hahahahah).

My other child is going to be locked in a monestary for 30 years to purge him of all evil, i think this a great idea as he looked at a picture of a man the other day and got very excited. If he does not go, i think i will have him exercised (oops got that wrong, did i mean exorcise).

Bible, bible, jesus jesus, god god, rant rave rant rave.

Thal

[pianistimo]

the way you read the bible makes me worry about you.

perhaps you should read something else.

[thalbergmad]

the way you read the bible makes me worry about you.

perhaps you should read something else.

Well, i was gonna read one of my Jack the Ripper books until i discovered there was more killing in the bible.

god jesus jesus god bible god jesus bible, rant rave, god bible jesus

[arbisley]

As an obvious result of celebrating pianistimo's 7000 (nearly 7200) posts, we have an extra large topic which seems to be never ending and strays off traditionally into a religious debate.....

just commenting.....

[rebby]

at last i get to talk, what is so special please, can i ask, in the nicest way possible, what is the point in spending your entire life worshipping god and following him, bla bla bla, when instead you could get out into the world and practice things like the PIANO.

Rebby xx

P.S. i am gona stop here for 2 reasons,
1. gona go play the PIANO
2. Don't wana bore people with an essey