Attention: "Click here" if you wish to find the true meaning of religion!

[rimv2]

Your rationality need no longer be in conflict with your belief. This video will put it all in perspective for you. To all you non believers: be humbled. To those of you of true faith: know that your sacrifices do not go in vain.

Click and become a believer

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972

[rimv2]

I forgot to mention. Only the strong will be able to handle this video. But hey, if you are of weak mind or spirit, perhaps watching it will help you overcome.

[jlh]

what?  Is this sponsored by 1-900-ast-rology?

 

[Derek]

I see there being 3 different main categories of thought on Christianity and religion in general.

1) - Fundamentalists who blindly believe everything in the bible and are not open minded to anything else

2) - Atheists who attack only fundamentalists and try to say that religion is all nonsense, was created for political control, and that nothing good ever comes of religion

3) - Open minded people who are sympathetic to Christianity because they do not see the glass as half empty, they realize that in any human institution there is both good and bad, and decides to look at the good and see whether it can better their own lives.

I'd say I'm in the third category, and my life is much better for it.  Upon watching that video, I would believe in the story of Jesus even stronger if I could verify the research they did for it. If it happened so many times in other cultures, we must be on to something. I just can't reject a system of beliefs that have lasted so long and do so much good for so many people, and which enriches my own life and the lives of many of my friends and family as well.  I don't feel like Christianity is being used to control me at all.

Recently I've been exploring an avenue of thought which usually makes first category christians declare that I am not a Christian. And that is, perhaps the story of Jesus is an incredibly powerful positive self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe he died for your sins, this makes you feel redeemed/uplifted, etc. Perhaps that IS the truth, right there. Atheists seem to imply that this would make it less significant. Why? I don't understand. If it uplifts me, it is significant.

[rimv2]

Recently I've been exploring an avenue of thought which usually makes first category christians declare that I am not a Christian. And that is, perhaps the story of Jesus is an incredibly powerful positive self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe he died for your sins, this makes you feel redeemed/uplifted, etc. Perhaps that IS the truth, right there. That's all I need. I don't need it to be some hocus pocus thing like fundamentalists seem to believe. I don't need to believe it blindly.

 

It seems you are a true believer. 

[jlh]

Upon watching that video, I would believe in the story of Jesus even stronger if I could verify the research they did for it. If it happened so many times in other cultures, we must be on to something. I just can't reject a system of beliefs that have lasted so long and do so much good for so many people, and which enriches my own life and the lives of many of my friends and family as well.  I don't feel like Christianity is being used to control me at all.

I think you missed the whole point of the video...  It was designed to change your belief about Christianity into a belief that it is just one of many reincarnations of the zodiac that was used politically by Rome to control the people, and has been used by governments since then to also control people.  The video did not mention anything good about Christianity.

I'm uncomfortable with the fact that nothing presented in the video is cited for reference, rather they are only claims made by some organization that I've never heard about. 

Really, where's the research?  Are we supposed to accept what they say without questioning it?

[prometheus]

I see there being 3 different main categories of thought on Christianity and religion in general.

1) - Fundamentalists who blindly believe everything in the bible and are not open minded to anything else

2) - Atheists who attack only fundamentalists and try to say that religion is all nonsense, was created for political control, and that nothing good ever comes of religion

3) - Open minded people who are sympathetic to Christianity because they do not see the glass as half empty,

This shows the funny way in which you are biased. Atheists who are also anti-theists attack all kinds of different believers. They attack liberals, fundamentalist, agnostics, pagans. And in the same sense they attack other atheists that support astrology, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc.



And where are the open minded people who don't sympathize with Christianity? All open-minded people are sympathetic to Christianity?


If there weren't any people like you there wouldn't be fundamentalists. And still fundamentalists 'hate' people like you more than they hate atheists.


At the same time fundamentalists recognize that anti-theists at least care as much  about the truth as them. And at the same time fundamentalists at least have a theory of how this world is, a world view, even though it is easily refuted.

Liberal Christians don't. I don't know what a liberal Christian is, really. How the hell can you be one? You belief in Christ but at the same time you don't belief in the bible. You belief that god created the world but then you reject the whole story on which this claim is originally based. You belief that god has teachings for humanity but then you reject the only candidate for this teaching.


Pianistimo is true to the scripture, or kind of. And even though I agree more with you then with her, you are departing from the fundamentals of Christianity and making up a new religion on the way.

If you recognize that Christianity is wrong, and for 1500 years all Christianity was what we now call fundamentalist Christianity, then why do you try to stick with it at all?

You may claim you are sympathetic to Christianity, but if you are truly a liberal then you just aren't. you are a person that is not sympathetic to Christianity but you refuse to give up your belief in a supernatural entity and you refuse to give up the religious framework you were brought up in.

I mean, maybe your theology is closer to that of Muslims, for example when it comes to the life of Christ.. So will you call yourself a Muslim then?


And while you are betraying faith you are still betraying reason by not  becoming an atheist.




Fundamentalist religious people are incredibly dangerous. But you are still paving the way for them. Why should fundamentalists give up their faith if you also refuse? The only thing you are doing is giving up certain theology because that way it is easier to have faith.

You are basically making the murders in the name of god possible. If no one believed in god then no one would kill in the name of god. If there were no liberals there wouldn't be any fundamentalists.

[jlh]

You are basically making the murders in the name of god possible. If no one believed in god then no one would kill in the name of god. If there were no liberals there wouldn't be any fundamentalists.

Why stop there?  If no one looked or believed differently than you, there wouldn't ever be any controversy...  that's the way genocide is started.  

Blaming murder on someone who had nothing to do with any crime is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? 

[prometheus]

Maybe you should read again.

It's very simple. You know of what liberal theists are guilty. And you know of what they are not guilty.

[jlh]

Maybe you should read again.

It's very simple. You know of what liberal theists are guilty. And you know of what they are not guilty.

I was referring to the fact that you personalized your remark directly at Derek.  Perhaps you wish to rephrase?

[Derek]

This shows the funny way in which you are biased. Atheists who are also anti-theists attack all kinds of different believers. They attack liberals, fundamentalist, agnostics, pagans. And in the same sense they attack other atheists that support astrology, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc.



And where are the open minded people who don't sympathize with Christianity? All open-minded people are sympathetic to Christianity?


If there weren't any people like you there wouldn't be fundamentalists. And still fundamentalists 'hate' people like you more than they hate atheists.


At the same time fundamentalists recognize that anti-theists at least care as much  about the truth as them. And at the same time fundamentalists at least have a theory of how this world is, a world view, even though it is easily refuted.

Liberal Christians don't. I don't know what a liberal Christian is, really. How the hell can you be one? You belief in Christ but at the same time you don't belief in the bible. You belief that god created the world but then you reject the whole story on which this claim is originally based. You belief that god has teachings for humanity but then you reject the only candidate for this teaching.


Pianistimo is true to the scripture, or kind of. And even though I agree more with you then with her, you are departing from the fundamentals of Christianity and making up a new religion on the way.

If you recognize that Christianity is wrong, and for 1500 years all Christianity was what we now call fundamentalist Christianity, then why do you try to stick with it at all?

You may claim you are sympathetic to Christianity, but if you are truly a liberal then you just aren't. you are a person that is not sympathetic to Christianity but you refuse to give up your belief in a supernatural entity and you refuse to give up the religious framework you were brought up in.

I mean, maybe your theology is closer to that of Muslims, for example when it comes to the life of Christ.. So will you call yourself a Muslim then?


And while you are betraying faith you are still betraying reason by not  becoming an atheist.




Fundamentalist religious people are incredibly dangerous. But you are still paving the way for them. Why should fundamentalists give up their faith if you also refuse? The only thing you are doing is giving up certain theology because that way it is easier to have faith.

You are basically making the murders in the name of god possible. If no one believed in god then no one would kill in the name of god. If there were no liberals there wouldn't be any fundamentalists.

I don't believe I've given up any theology. I always ask the question: "What does this myth/story/history etc. MEAN? and what is its significance?" If I can find a satisfactory answer to those questions without resorting to "it was just pure hocus pocus or magic" then I see no inconsistency in me saying I believe a piece of theology as a strong positive self fulfilling prophecy with a fundamentalist simply saying: "jesus died for my sins. period."  I simply have chosen to think about it more. I don't see how that is inconsistent with theology at all.

I don't see how one can betray reason to believe in God or to disbelieve in God. I don't see how one can betray reason when it comes to anything that we cannot observe. At that point, any belief is irrational. What makes the act of believing a rational one is whether or not it enriches ones life. If it does, that is a good thing to do. If it does not, there's no point in pursuing it.

In a sense I consider my choice of Christianity arbitrary. There are other religions which I think may provide similar fulfillment to other individuals. Hinduism, Buddhism....and others. I however was raised with many Christian traditions, and it so happens I was raised with literature by Christian apologetics such as C.S. Lewis. I find that Christianity enriches my life so much that I feel it is an appropriate belief system for me. I don't think God really cares in the final analysis whether I find him via a religion or not. And I also don't care if some Christians think I am not a Christian for daring to suggest that idea, either. This is between me, and God. And I can connect with him the best through Christianity. That is who I am.

I make murders in the name of god possible? I could just as easily say that anti industrialists make murders in the name of communism possible.  People are flawed. People kill, but people also do good. People feel strong zeal with or without a religion: they will create their own religion. It is a pipe dream to expect that the entire human race can deny humanity and never feel religious zeal or hatred ever again. yes it is a bad thing, but just eliminating organized religion would not get rid of this truth about human nature.   Who created religion after all? God? Nope.  we did.

[rimv2]

I think you missed the whole point of the video...  It was designed to change your belief about Christianity into a belief that it is just one of many reincarnations of the zodiac that was used politically by Rome to control the people, and has been used by governments since then to also control people.  The video did not mention anything good about Christianity.

I'm uncomfortable with the fact that nothing presented in the video is cited for reference, rather they are only claims made by some organization that I've never heard about. 

Really, where's the research?  Are we supposed to accept what they say without questioning it?

No you aren't. They'd be no different than the religions they speak of if that were the case.

They're not pushing a belief on you, they're giving you the truth. You decide.

How do I know it's truth?

According to my brother, who has researched this extensively, they got a couple of the dates of a couple of the gods on their list wrong. Call it human error.

But that's my brother.

I'm doing my research as well. Seems 99.9% of the facts they give are true. You're a smart fella, and I trust you'll do what you need to do, so you can reach your own conclusions.

Then you'll be a believer as well 

A believer in what? That's the real question.

[rimv2]

PS There seems to be a fundamental need for human beings to rationalize everything. After watching this video, I, in my mind, began to rework Christianity to fit with this new information. Rather than accept what I saw and heard, and learned , I began to make new connection in an attempt to hold on to this part of me I felt was somehow robbed by watching this.

I even thought so far as: life being some sort of fluctuating time loop. In this loop, everything repeated it self with slight variation until the changes within sent time of on a tangent. The more things changes the longer it takes to come back on its cycle until one day it spans of into eternity and time a progress simply stops. These other stories of gods were not retailings of a tale but in fact the repetition of cycle that has be going on since the dawn of time.

Could I just be thinking a little to much? Or am I doing exactly what the founders of religion hoped I would do? What do you do when faced with three choices?

1) Accept the truth wholy.
2) Accept the truth and attempt to rationalize it even though it's irrational to do so.
3) Know the truth and simpy disregard it.

This got me thinking. What if that is the function of religion? I've never really held the bible close to my heart. I've always figured that it was written by men and, therefore, subject to error and misinterpretation. I believed in god. I believed in Jesus. I lived as morally as I could. That's all I needed. That's all I felt the world needed. What does church have to do with god?

When the majority of your life is based on faith, going with choice number one doesn't seem-

I've just had and epiphany of sorts.

Denial, Anger, BARGAINING, depression, acceptance.

The five stages of loss.

That's it!

When you bargain with yourself you always win. Therefore, getting to other stages and moving on is an extremely unlikely possibility. When faced with an ingrained faith, one will always bargain for, instead of, against it. It would take a person of extreme will or an extreme circumstance for one to choose to change his or her "belief" otherwise.

[jlh]

No you aren't. They'd be no different than the religions they speak of if that were the case.

Who are "they"?

[rimv2]

Who are "they"?

Uhmm..... <_<

This is... kind of awkward...

Really, where's the research?  Are we supposed to accept what they say without questioning it?

[prometheus]

I was referring to the fact that you personalized your remark directly at Derek.  Perhaps you wish to rephrase?

Well, Derek asked several times for criticisms by stating that atheist use fundamentalists as a straw man.


Also, I never said he was responsible for the actions of others. You never are. But he is responsible for his own action.

But let's take the example of Paul Hill. He killed an abortion doctor. Why did he do that? Where did it go wrong?

He has faith in the Christian god of the bible. He is a fundamentalist. He believed that aborting an fetus is murder. And he believed that the souls of those babies will burn in hell thanks to this doctor. He believes god wants him to kill those who murder so many 'people'.

The decision to kill this abortion doctor was perfectly reasonable and compassionate from his point of view.
The point where it goes wrong is having faith in god. It's the same thing Derek does. So how can you criticize people like Paul Hill if you refuse to criticize having faith?

It just ended up being so that having the kind of faith Paul Hill has means good people will murder abortion doctors. If Paul Hill didn't kill that abortion doctor he was a bad person. That's what I think. If you believe this abortion doctor is causing so much harm and if you refuse to do anything about it you are not a compassionate person.


Derek and all those liberals have exactly the same faith. Yet their faith is a little different. For them it would just be harder to have a faith that means that people need to be killed. It's not that they aren't compassionate enough to kill abortion doctors and prevent eternal torment of hundreds of innocent souls. It's just that they don't like to believe in this world view. So they pick another one.


That's the only difference. And that's quite scary. Really, if you see liberal Christians argue against fundamentalists it's really embarrassing. They can't question those people's faith. So they end up going nowhere.

And while liberals don't question their faith, why should fundamentalists? And surely everyone should try to be compassionate. So how do we prevent these kinds of killings?

[prometheus]

I don't believe I've given up any theology. I always ask the question: "What does this myth/story/history etc. MEAN? and what is its significance?" If I can find a satisfactory answer to those questions without resorting to "it was just pure hocus pocus or magic" then I see no inconsistency in me saying I believe a piece of theology as a strong positive self fulfilling prophecy with a fundamentalist simply saying: "jesus died for my sins. period."  I simply have chosen to think about it more. I don't see how that is inconsistent with theology at all.

There's nothing to think about. The only account of god is the bible. And on core theology the bible is pretty clear. But if you reject hocus pocus you should reject the bible. Because that's what it is. Tribalism and hocus pocus.

What you are doing is taking your world view and then thinking hard as to how you can fit Christianity into your world view. Instead, Christianity should be your world view. I mean, it's god. If you really believe god exists and created the universe then what is more important than god and his word?



If you think that the bible was written by bronze age people and not by god, then what's left? I am not so sure about your beliefs. But you should at least be a deist and not a Christian if you belief that.

I don't see how one can betray reason to believe in God or to disbelieve in God. I don't see how one can betray reason when it comes to anything that we cannot observe.

You see perfectly, you just don't want to accept. If god existed we would be able to observe her. There's no evidence for god, so there's no reason to even consider her existence. The point is pretty clear and you accept it on all other things but god. Don't tell me you don't understand.

Or are you truly an agnostic when it comes to all gods?

At that point, any belief is irrational.

You mean any faith? Belief's aren't irrational if you have good reasons to hold them. There is no good reason to hold a belief in god. Believing god exists because we can't observe things that aren't observable is not a good reason.

What makes the act of believing a rational one is whether or not it enriches ones life.

Haha, no. Obviously this is false. Just because it is convenient to belief something doesn't make it true. Just because you want to belief something doesn't make it true, etc.

Wishful thinking is actually well accepted as a logical fallacy. Now, logical fallacies aren't reasonable.

If it does, that is a good thing to do. If it does not, there's no point in pursuing it.

This way of thinking leads to Paul Hill in some cases. In his view Christianity and killing the doctor were enriching his life. If you can't critisize this you can't even criticize terrible acts by fundamentalists. It's just that their arbitrary faith is a little different than yours.

In a sense I consider my choice of Christianity arbitrary. There are other religions which I think may provide similar fulfillment to other individuals. Hinduism, Buddhism....and others. I however was raised with many Christian traditions

This is exactly my point. There must be a lot of double think going on here. Don't you care for the truth? if you really believe that god created the entire universe then wouldn't you consider Hinduism stupid?


I grew up without religion and I liked to know stuff as a child. So I read children's books about space travel and dinosaur. I can't imagine myself saying that this is totally arbitrary and that I would just as glad have been a Hindu because that religion answers the same questions in a completely different way. But hey, it removes those itching questions and that's what matters.


Don't you care about the truth? If you belief in this all powerful Abraham god then why do you think his faith in his existence is totally arbitrarily determined by the place where you grew up?

Now I agree that your Christian faith is arbitrary. But I don't really see how you can cling to your faith after you make this realization.

Maybe you are a deist that clings to the Christian framework of tradition because of secular domestic family nostalgia. I mean, I don't understand your position. Do you belief that there is one almighty god that created everything and reincarnated himself into Jesus Christ to teach humanity and perform miracles or not? And by that I don't mean if you want to belief that. Did it happen or not?

...and it so happens I was raised with literature by Christian apologetics such as C.S. Lewis. I find that Christianity enriches my life so much that I feel it is an appropriate belief system for me. I don't think God really cares in the final analysis whether I find him via a religion or not.

Why do you think that? Isn't the bible quite clear about this? Did you speak with him? Or do you just want to belief that?

And this is intruding, can you find god through something besides religion?

I never understand what theists mean by 'god' though I kind of thing I understand it a little. But in your case I am not so sure. Seems your definition of god is very different from that of Pianistimo, for example.

And I also don't care if some Christians think I am not a Christian for daring to suggest that idea, either. This is between me, and God. And I can connect with him the best through Christianity. That is who I am.

The definition of Christian is a human one, not a divine one. Either you fit it or not.

I make murders in the name of god possible? I could just as easily say that anti industrialists make murders in the name of communism possible.  People are flawed. People kill, but people also do good.

Yes, but Paul Hill killed not because he was flawed. But because of the nature of his faith. If he was flawed he might not have had the bravery to commit that horrible act. He wanted to do good.

People feel strong zeal with or without a religion: they will create their own religion.

Actually, when it comes to religion I think this is the only way to go. Make up your own and use double think. But I do think it is intellectually dishonest. But when you are going to debate it you need to be careful.


If I made up my own religion because I like to belief some things and use double think so I can have two world views at the same time I realize very much my position is indefensible. My position cannot be justified because the sole reason it exists is my wishful thinking. So I will refrain from talking about my religion from others otherwise I have to be intellectually dishonest or admit how bankrupt my faith really is.

It is a pipe dream to expect that the entire human race can deny humanity...

What do you mean?

...and never feel religious zeal or hatred ever again. yes it is a bad thing, but just eliminating organized religion would not get rid of this truth about human nature.   Who created religion after all? God? Nope.  we did.

There's really no passion for reality in you, is there?


Maybe it is true the majority of the people on earth just need religion to function. Maybe it is true that the people that falsely belief that they need god to act morally will act very immoral without their faith. But even if this is true I will stand up for reality and truth.


Let me ask you this question.
We have games like WoW and Second Life right now. Let's say we can incite a dream state in our mind that is basically an alternative reality. A reality that can be anything we want it to be and is just as real for our human perception as the 'real world'. Would you support such a thing? Would you rather live your life in a virtual world just because life in it is more enjoyable?  Just because such a life is a life richer of experiences? Just because there everyone can be a movie star? A millionaire? A football hero? Or a Buddha, the savior of the world, or whatever you would like to be?


Or are these delusions that enrich your life not 'sacred'? If so then what is so sacred about religion except that they are delusions that enrich your life?

[themockingbird]

2) - Atheists who attack only fundamentalists and try to say that religion is all nonsense, was created for political control, and that nothing good ever comes of religion

Please, for the love of God (oh the irony), stop lumping all atheists into one category. We aren't all Richard Dawkins. If you don't want atheists to assume all Christians are fundamentalists, then stop behaving as if all atheists are violently anti-religion.

Prometheus said it all better than me, but I just wanted to reiterate that. I heard that God (the Christian God) would rather a person was cold (a total non-believer) than lukewarm (a half-hearted believer). Get your act together Derek!

Also, reply to the notion about eternity thread please.

[Derek]

There's nothing to think about. The only account of god is the bible.

I suppose that's why there are so many dozens of books on the subject. Just hundreds of thousands of pages of people thinking about nothing. 

The only account of god is the bible? what? There are tons of religions all over the world and throughout history which talk about God in one form or another, some characterize him as a single god, others characterize him as many gods.

And on core theology the bible is pretty clear. But if you reject hocus pocus you should reject the bible. Because that's what it is. Tribalism and hocus pocus.

I don't reject hocus pocus. I haven't personally seen hocus pocus happen. The existence of the universe itself, and life, is enough of a miracle for me. I don't require God to continue wowing me with impossible feats beyond just that of our own existence. I am already awed by it. To me, our existence is hocus pocus. We have absolutely no idea how we got here or why or anything like that.

What you are doing is taking your world view and then thinking hard as to how you can fit Christianity into your world view. Instead, Christianity should be your world view. I mean, it's god. If you really believe god exists and created the universe then what is more important than god and his word?

Christianity is, in fact, my world view. I don't have to be a fundamentalist for this to be true. Nowhere in the bible is it asserted that I must take everything in its pages absolutely literally or not think about it. You sound almost like a fundamentalist christian in many of your posts...telling me I can't be a christian unless I accept it literally. This is what places you and many atheists squarely in that second category I mentioned.

If you think that the bible was written by bronze age people and not by god, then what's left? I am not so sure about your beliefs. But you should at least be a deist and not a Christian if you belief that.

I believe it was inspired by God and that there is much truth in it. It is not itself the word of God, but the word of God is contained within it. It is up to anyone who takes it seriously to decide for themselves what in it REALLY IS the word of God, and what is just ancient Hebrew law, etc. One must always assume that there really is an absolute truth and morality in the universe, but that anyone's interpretation of it, authors of the bible, theologians, clergymen, ourselves, may be flawed. It is up to the individual to figure it out.

You see perfectly, you just don't want to accept. If god existed we would be able to observe her. There's no evidence for god, so there's no reason to even consider her existence. The point is pretty clear and you accept it on all other things but god. Don't tell me you don't understand.

There may be no physical evidence for God, but if you connect with God and feel that he has had a positive impact in your life, as I feel, that is enough evidence for me to believe.

Or are you truly an agnostic when it comes to all gods?

If I were agnostic, I wouldn't be taking Christianity and its message as seriously as I am.

You mean any faith? Belief's aren't irrational if you have good reasons to hold them. There is no good reason to hold a belief in god. Believing god exists because we can't observe things that aren't observable is not a good reason.

I don't think it is a good reason to believe in God to "explain" the universe, either. The only reason which makes any sense to me is: Does believing in God help augment me as an individual and make me treat other human beings better? Does he provide something before which I can attempt to learn humility? Does he provide something to which I can be grateful for that which goes well in my life?   If the answer to these questions is yes, then it is rational to believe in God.

Wishful thinking is actually well accepted as a logical fallacy. Now, logical fallacies aren't reasonable.

It seems to me that wishful thinking is only "wishful thinking" if it is known that there are great odds against what one wishes for. Since we cannot observe God or anything spiritual directly with our 5 senses, we cannot determine whether there are great odds for or against the existence of God. Therefore I would hesitate to call it "wishful thinking." Yes, I do hope there is a God, but I think this is a bit different from saying: "Oh, I do hope I win that lottery!"

This way of thinking leads to Paul Hill in some cases. In his view Christianity and killing the doctor were enriching his life. If you can't critisize this you can't even criticize terrible acts by fundamentalists. It's just that their arbitrary faith is a little different than yours.

Comparing my thought to a murderer isn't very fair, I don't think. Murderers are crazy. I am not.

if you really believe that god created the entire universe then wouldn't you consider Hinduism stupid?

I believe the same God that is worshipped in all religions created the entire universe. I consider Christianity a particularly clean window through which I can connect with God.

Now I agree that your Christian faith is arbitrary. But I don't really see how you can cling to your faith after you make this realization.

Because I see religion as an intellectual and spiritual tool, accompanied with a great history and richness of literature and so forth, that helps me connect with God. Religion isn't God himself, it is a human institution. 

Do you belief that there is one almighty god that created everything and reincarnated himself into Jesus Christ to teach humanity and perform miracles or not?

Yes, I do believe that.

And this is intruding, can you find god through something besides religion?

Yes. I just like to add richness to my relationship with God with the religion called Christianity.

Seems your definition of god is very different from that of Pianistimo, for example.

It might be, I suppose, but we worship the same God either way. We can't change who God is.

The definition of Christian is a human one, not a divine one. Either you fit it or not.

The definition of Christian. What is this definition, in your opinion? Is there really one all encompassing definition? If so, who made this definition? Who gave him the authority to declare:
"This is the definition of a Christian." The only true authority is God. And I believe that my own thought, combined with what I learn from the Bible, is what makes me a Christian. Not
some bunch of sentences from one passage, or some speech by a pastor. It is an individual relationship. I am a Christian, regardless of whether you or anyone else declares that I am not.

Yes, but Paul Hill killed not because he was flawed. But because of the nature of his faith. If he was flawed he might not have had the bravery to commit that horrible act. He wanted to do good.

There you go using a crazy murderer as an example again.

If I made up my own religion because I like to belief some things and use double think so I can have two world views at the same time I realize very much my position is indefensible. My position cannot be justified because the sole reason it exists is my wishful thinking. So I will refrain from talking about my religion from others otherwise I have to be intellectually dishonest or admit how bankrupt my faith really is.

I do not consider my ideas, developing as they still are, to be double think. If I was engaging in that, I'd be saying: "I believe Jesus died for my sins, was resurrected, etc., but miracles are impossible."     Instead, I first ask: What on earth does it mean for Jesus to die for our sins and be resurrected? Is it important to take these things absolutely literally, or is the real Truth (which is no less significant with regards to our hearts and lives as they are affected by this story/history) something else?

There's really no passion for reality in you, is there?

If reality really is as you envision it, then no, I have zero passion for it. I have zero passion for a dull, hopeless, Godless world.  But we don't know whether it is truly hopeless and Godless. We can't observe God. That is why some of us choose to be hopeful and have Faith.

Maybe it is true the majority of the people on earth just need religion to function. Maybe it is true that the people that falsely belief that they need god to act morally will act very immoral without their faith. But even if this is true I will stand up for reality and truth.

Then truth is your God. Fundamentalists are your Satan.

Let me ask you this question.
We have games like WoW and Second Life right now. Let's say we can incite a dream state in our mind that is basically an alternative reality. A reality that can be anything we want it to be and is just as real for our human perception as the 'real world'. Would you support such a thing? Would you rather live your life in a virtual world just because life in it is more enjoyable?  Just because such a life is a life richer of experiences? Just because there everyone can be a movie star? A millionaire? A football hero? Or a Buddha, the savior of the world, or whatever you would like to be?


Or are these delusions that enrich your life not 'sacred'? If so then what is so sacred about religion except that they are delusions that enrich your life?

These questions would be interesting enough for an entirely new thread, I think. It could spawn an entire discussion about reality. Why don't you start a new one?

[jlh]

Uhmm..... <_<

This is... kind of awkward...

Only awkward because you haven't told us who "they" are.  Obviously "they" made the film, and obviously "they" are some kind of entity, whether it be a cult or a corperation or one person, or whatever.  My question is who are "they"? 

[rimv2]

Only awkward because you haven't told us who "they" are.  Obviously "they" made the film, and obviously "they" are some kind of entity, whether it be a cult or a corperation or one person, or whatever.  My question is who are "they"? 

Peter Merola is the name that seems to keep popping up. I don't think it's of relevance as he's clearly just posted together comments and quotes from others.

There are errors in the film. It doesn't seem it was made to be absolute, but rather convey certain ideas. The movie itself is about finding the truth and not taking everything given to you a face value. It pretty much saying, don't fall into the stupid lazy trap because who knows where it could be leading you. This goes for the movie itself.

But I know you guys are smart enough to already know that.

[jlh]

I would not be surprised if this is taken off Google very soon...  From learning more about this if I were Merola I'd be worried of being sued out of existence for that great wad of copyright infringement that is Zeitgeist.  From my research it seems Zeitgeist literally steals from at least four different conspiracy theory films (well, 3 CT films and "The God That Wasn't There").