What is your Religion: Part II

[Papewaio]

One thing that scripture does not mention is whether the people believe in Jesus or not. If you don't believe in Jesus, you will not be saved.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say that.

-ZainDustin

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat a wrong answer it is still wrong.

Read Romans 10 and 11 and come back to the debate after that.

[Zain]

Alright then, I'll take some time off and read this, and get back to you.

-ZainDustin

[Zain]

Papewaio, I looked at that scripture, and have come to some conclusions. In Romans 10, when it refers to "Lord" it is referring to Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Also, in Romans 11, it is talking about Jesus, the Messiah, coming to Earth and teaching the word of God, so Israel might be saved.

Read this, it's pretty commonly used...

Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me."

-John 14-6 NIV

touche

[Zain]

Earlier in Romans it talks about Moses trying to pursuade the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.

[Zain]

No. no and thrice no. Atheism in not a religion.



link

I can understand why some people who hold superstititious beliefs cannot understand an absence of belief, as it runs counter to everything they hold sacred.

I used to be a Christian, and then I learn to think for myself.

Another rare topic that JAG and I completely agree on.

So would you say you have faith that there is no God? BTW, there is no such thing as "use to be a Christian".

[Papewaio]

And in Romans it talks about despite being wayward the Israelites will be saved regardless...

[Divinus Arma]

So would you say you have faith that there is no God? BTW, there is no such thing as "use to be a Christian".

Disagreed. I failed to mention that I, too, "used to be a christian".

I was about 18 or 19. I succumbed to the power of the modern christian message. I truly believed. And I was horrified by the billions that would perish in hell. It was heartbreaking... I can't express how painful that revelation was.

It was all so clear to me then.... The foolish pride of the saducees and pharisees, the pride of modern men, my own pride.

I remember walking for miles after "accepting Christ". I walked from 10am until 10pm that day. From one city to another, and on to a third. Just thinking. (I was a heavy backpacker as a teenager, so 12 hours of walking was nothing to me then). I felt enlightened. Like a burden had been lifted. I felt free. But I also felt enormous sadness from the price that humanity would pay.


So yes. I "used to be a Christian" too. And I wasn't even raised Christian at all.


Now my belief in a singular God is only stronger, and my resentment for arrogant religion has only grown. Any religion that affrims itself as the only way is a plague. An evil. A force for destruction. Despicable. Arrogant, self-serving, controlling, greedy, and power-mongering.

There is nothing wrong with organized worship in any religion. But there is everything wrong with organized evangelicalism- regardless of the religion.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now my belief in a singular God is only stronger, and my resentment for arrogant religion has only grown. Any religion that affrims itself as the only way is a plague. An evil. A force for destruction. Despicable. Arrogant, self-serving, controlling, greedy, and power-mongering.

There is nothing wrong with organized worship in any religion. But there is everything wrong with organized evangelicalism- regardless of the religion.

Wise, wise words.

Zain, your arguments leave me cold. I don't propose to debate you, since reasoned debate is wasted on a zealot. Your arguments only drive me further away from your faith. Your god is one that I reject utterly, for the reason so eloquently expressed in 'The Brothers Karamazov' (which, by the way, is an excellent and thought-provoking read for any religious person):

"I cannot believe in a god that would permit the suffering of a single child."

As I wrote before, I would hate to spend eternity in the Heaven that you desire. It would be packed with insufferable people full of certainty and devoid of compassion. No doubt the madmen that blow themselves up along with women and children in the hope of heaven and innumerable virgins would be right alongside everyone else who believes so unshakeably that their way is the only way. Why you people think your revealed truth is the only one, when even your own Christianity is riven with different sects, let alone other myths and belief systems, is beyond me.

The most sensible philosophy of heaven and hell (should such places exist) was expressed to me in a Chinese parable (paraphrased for the Christian paradigm):

A man died and went to Judgement. He was surprised to find that instead of a big courtroom with a vengeful God, he was met by Saint Peter. The saint smiled. 'Welcome to heaven, for you have been a kind and generous man.' He led the man to a wonderful place, full of birdsong and warm sun. Spread before him in the sunlit fields were great tables full of extraordinary foods, sweets, fruit and wines of every vintage. The many people sat around the tables were laughing and singing, the very eptiome of happiness.

'The only rule in Heaven is that you may only use the spoons to eat,' said Peter. The man noticed that these spoons were two metres in length, which was odd, but everyone was using them to feed each other, so it didn't matter.

The man thanked the saint, but was curious. 'I have always wondered why our loving God made Hell,' he said. 'May I see what it is like for the poor souls?'

Saint Peter smiled and nodded. They walked a way, until they came to another land, exactly the same as the first - warm and pleasant. The same tables groaned under good things. But the people there were emaciated and scabrous, their bones showing through shrunken flesh. They had miserable, glaring eyes, reddened with frustrated weeping. They could see the marvellous treats, but beyond their reach.

Seeing the man's furrowed brow, Peter pointed out the spoons, each held tightly in a person's hand. A few angry souls were still trying to lift food into their own mouths and failing because of the long handles. They glared and berated their neighbours. They swore and cursed God.

'The rule here,' said Peter sadly, 'is exactly the same as in Heaven.' The man nodded and they returned to the place where people helped each other, instead of themselves.

[GoreBag]

I like that story. Unfortunately, not all things in the world are two-metre spoons. You'd think someone would just jam their face in the food..

One might say that I'm missing the point, but I intend this answer to be as much a metaphor as the parabole.

[InsaneApache]

So would you say you have faith that there is no God? BTW, there is no such thing as "use to be a Christian".

No. Faith is a blind acceptance of the supernatural. I have a certainty.

Why can't I be an ex-christian?

[R'as al Ghul]

No. Faith is a blind acceptance of the supernatural. I have a certainty.

Do you mean you're certain that there's no God? How?
I call myself agnostic because I don't belief but can't be certain about a nonexistence.

[InsaneApache]

Do you mean you're certain that there's no God? How?
I call myself agnostic because I don't belief but can't be certain about a nonexistence.

Which God do you suggest I can't be certain about?

Baal.

Zeus.

Thor.

Yahweh.

Horus.

Saturn.

Need I go on?

[R'as al Ghul]

A multitude of gods doesn't give me certainty about the nonexistence of any of them. Neither can I be sure that any of them exists. As far as I know all of them could exist at the same time.
I basically share your opinion, though. In the other thread about this topic I stated that: "I believe that humans created gods and not the other way round". Maybe some of those old gods died because people stopped to believe in them?

What I can't say is that I'm certain about any gods nonexistence.
I suspect that they don't exist, but how can we/you be certain?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I like that story. Unfortunately, not all things in the world are two-metre spoons. You'd think someone would just jam their face in the food..

One might say that I'm missing the point, but I intend this answer to be as much a metaphor as the parabole.

The two-metre spoon is as arbitrary as anything else these gods have done and dozy rules seem to be the fare of organized religions. As is mankind's desire to get around the rules, so I would say you're making the point really well!

If I am attracted to any religious notions, it is the pantheistic pagan 'spirits of nature' type approach - such as the Greek pantheon - where the gods take sides, shaft their favourites, gamble with people's hopes and lives, are as venial as their creation and seem to only be interested in sex with naiads and other people's husbands/wives.

Truly then, could men be said to be made in the gods' images and it fits the observed facts way better.

[mystic brew]

well, you can't be certain of a negative. the only evidence can be lack of evidence.... etc.

But just as those who believe in god 'know with certainty' there is a god/s, i think those who don't believe must be allowed to say the same.

As long as neither says they can prove it!

[mystic brew]

A multitude of gods doesn't give me certainty about the nonexistence of any of them. Neither can I be sure that any of them exists. As far as I know all of them could exist at the same time.
I basically share your opinion, though. In the other thread about this topic I stated that: "I believe that humans created gods and not the other way round". Maybe some of those old gods died because people stopped to believe in them?

What I can't say is that I'm certain about any gods nonexistence.
I suspect that they don't exist, but how can we/you be certain?

so are you saying that it's impossible to prove the existence of god? (honest enquiry here, not trying to bait!)

[Banquo's Ghost]

well, you can't be certain of a negative. the only evidence can be lack of evidence.... etc.

As the old scientific axiom goes:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[mystic brew]

*tags Haruchai*
you're it...

so all we can do is advance on the continuing lack of evidence. It's an assumptions, and as my ginger bearded scottish teacher used to say (ad nauseam) assumptions make an ass of u and me. see what he did there?

[R'as al Ghul]

well, you can't be certain of a negative. the only evidence can be lack of evidence.... etc.

I agree.

But just as those who believe in god 'know with certainty' there is a god/s, i think those who don't believe must be allowed to say the same. As long as neither says they can prove it!

I may have missed the post where a believer said that he knows "with certainty" that there is a god. I can't relate to that.
I know that some people can believe so strongly that they believe it to be true. That doesn't make it true for me.

so are you saying that it's impossible to prove the existence of god? (honest enquiry here, not trying to bait!)

I would agree that it's not possible to prove any god's existence as well as it's not possible to prove their existence.
I know of no way and philosophers have tried to prove/disprove god for centuries, to no avail.
But I'm making an absolute statement here, which is in itself problematic.

[mystic brew]

Zain said something about certainty earlier in the thread.

A agree with you about it being probably impossible to prove one way or the other. But for me, if it's impossible to prove the existence or not of god, then to all intents and purposes, God is entirely irrelevant. If he doesn't take an active role then he doesn't have any impact on any decision i make.

So i'm an atheist...

[R'as al Ghul]

I basically agree.
I would say though, that God isn't entirely irrelevant to our life
because of the many people that believe very strongly in his existence.
Suicide bombers, for example can influence our life. They do so in the name of their god (or so they say). One could argue that this god affects us indirectly. But then again you could argue that it's only the terrorist.
Either way, we have to deal with religions and believers and therefore with god/ gods.
Absurd isn't it?

[mystic brew]

i should have said irrelevant to me...

but yes, agreed. whether man made god or vice versa religion remains a powerful force in our world.

My interest is in fighting the attitudes i see as wrong while trying to find common ground the rest of the time

[R'as al Ghul]

My interest is in fighting the attitudes i see as wrong while trying to find common ground the rest of the time

Let's have a beer on common ground.
That is if you drink with agnostics.

[mystic brew]

i'll drink with anyone!

<-- alcoholic? nah...

But i really have trouble with the dogmatic who claim a monopoly on truth. Hence my respect for those who are willing to listen and change...

So tell me, how does your moral code work? what are your touchstones?

[R'as al Ghul]

So tell me, how does your moral code work? what are your touchstones?

Well, I had to think a bit about this.(And I've to work between posts)
It's actually difficult to answer since moral codes are so complex. Plus, I don't like to label myself.
I grew up in a christian society (Germany) but my family is non-believing.
The christian values, or the moral code implicit in them, have formed me to a certain extense.
I view the bible as a piece of old literature that can nevertheless provide valuable insights into society and the way it works.
I even agree with a lot of Jesus' preachings but I don't take them as God's words.
I get allergic when someone tries to convert me or bothers me with their religion.
In my point of view Religion is a personal thing.
I follow Kant's imperative. I generally have respect for all life-forms on earth. I can see truth and wisdom in buddhist teachings.
Science is a strong touchstone for me. But I acknowledge that there are things that science can't explain (yet).

Does this even remotely answer your question?

[mystic brew]

yep, and thanks for taking the time!

and work... *sigh* shouldn't i be doing some of that? perils of 'working from home'

and i think you and i have very similar attitudes on religion, which, as children of post WWII europe (i assume) isn't entirely surprising!

Certainly in the UK there is a recognisable seperation of the personal and the political.
For example, I have no problem with the archbishop of Canterbury. He is a good man, and i often think he speaks sense, and he is entitled to speak from a religious point of view because he represents the anglican community.

but i find Tony Blair's assertion that he answers to a higher power reprehensible, because as an elected official his higher power should be bloody us! not god.
[/rant]

a little while ago there was a survey of what the 1st secular commandment, and overwhelmingly it was 'do to others as you would be done to'.

Which is quite a good one, but unfortunately the inability of many people to properly empathise is a profound barrier to it's proper execution.

Personally i find myself in broad agreement with secular humanism, but since i mistrust organised dogma it's only useful as a skeleton to my ethics.

[Zain]

And in Romans it talks about despite being wayward the Israelites will be saved regardless...

Regardless of what? Of whether they accept Jesus or not? No.. No.. this is saying that they CAN be saved, but only if they believe in Jesus Christ. The bible does not contradict itself, so John 14:6 should end this debate.

-ZainDustin

[Mongoose]

In other words, turn or burn

Why are you so certain that your faith is the only true one? All you have is faith, so does the rest of the religous world. Logically, if it's mostly only a guess, then you have almost 0 chance of going to heaven, no matter how morally you live your life.

[Cowhead418]

I am an ex-Christian and have now turned into a full-blown atheist. I was sick and tired of the story changing constantly, and people making up stories to the Christian faith to suit their beliefs. This God you believe in Zain is a very horrible being. To damn someone for eternity just because they don't believe in Him is not an example of an "all-loving God." Especially when they have all the reason in the world to not believe in Him because He has never given any evidence towards his existence.

Why should we believe what the Bible says anyway? Just because? How do we know it is not as relevant and truthful as a fairytale?

I would like Zain to answer this following argument: I definitely don't want to live forever, because eternity just seems too much for me. However, I would like to live longer than we are allowed. I believe that there is no afterlife, no God, no Heaven, no Hell, just complete oblivion after death. In fact, I also believe Heaven is no better than Hell. My reasoning is this: In life, you cannot experience the highs without the lows. Why does that shower at the end of the day feel so good, why do students love Summer Vacation, why does eating, sleeping, and drinking feel good to us? It is because of the negatives such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, homework, etc. Imagine a life where nothing ever bad happened to you, it would be awful. Eating, drinking, sleeping, friendships would be meaningless because you wouldn't feel hunger, thirst, fatigue, or sadness. There are many other examples of this of course. In Heaven, there is no low, no negatives, correct? In Hell, there is no high, no positives. They are the two extremes, and I would hate to be in either one. Heaven would be great at first, sure, but it would become incredibly dull, and without conflict and negatives to balance out the extreme positives, everything we would do for happiness would become utterly meaningless. However, if Heaven did have the proper balance of highs and lows, then it would cease to be Heaven because in a "paradise" you can't have anything bad happen to you. So in my view, Heaven would be a terrible place and I would rather have complete oblivion after death. What do you have to say about this?

PS: What really started to turn me away from my belief was my CCD teacher telling me that Catholics believe your soul stays with your body after death until Judgment Day, where the decision for each soul to go to Heaven or Hell is made. I had never heard that before and believed it to be utter crap. This God seems like an egotistical, arrogant, heartless bastard to me, and I wish to be no part of Him.

[Zain]

I am an ex-Christian and have now turned into a full-blown atheist. I was sick and tired of the story changing constantly, and people making up stories to the Christian faith to suit their beliefs. This God you believe in Zain is a very horrible being. To damn someone for eternity just because they don't believe in Him is not an example of an "all-loving God." Especially when they have all the reason in the world to not believe in Him because He has never given any evidence towards his existence.

Why should we believe what the Bible says anyway? Just because? How do we know it is not as relevant and truthful as a fairytale?

I would like Zain to answer this following argument: I definitely don't want to live forever, because eternity just seems too much for me. However, I would like to live longer than we are allowed. I believe that there is no afterlife, no God, no Heaven, no Hell, just complete oblivion after death. In fact, I also believe Heaven is no better than Hell. My reasoning is this: In life, you cannot experience the highs without the lows. Why does that shower at the end of the day feel so good, why do students love Summer Vacation, why does eating, sleeping, and drinking feel good to us? It is because of the negatives such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, homework, etc. Imagine a life where nothing ever bad happened to you, it would be awful. Eating, drinking, sleeping, friendships would be meaningless because you wouldn't feel hunger, thirst, fatigue, or sadness. There are many other examples of this of course. In Heaven, there is no low, no negatives, correct? In Hell, there is no high, no positives. They are the two extremes, and I would hate to be in either one. Heaven would be great at first, sure, but it would become incredibly dull, and without conflict and negatives to balance out the extreme positives, everything we would do for happiness would become utterly meaningless. However, if Heaven did have the proper balance of highs and lows, then it would cease to be Heaven because in a "paradise" you can't have anything bad happen to you. So in my view, Heaven would be a terrible place and I would rather have complete oblivion after death. What do you have to say about this?

PS: What really started to turn me away from my belief was my CCD teacher telling me that Catholics believe your soul stays with your body after death until Judgment Day, where the decision for each soul to go to Heaven or Hell is made. I had never heard that before and believed it to be utter crap. This God seems like an egotistical, arrogant, heartless bastard to me, and I wish to be no part of Him.

Honestly, I'm very tired of talking about this now (after days and days) but I'll try my best.

I believe that you are interpreting Heaven to be utterly boring, correct? Well then, I'll have to agree with you that no lows would get boring. But, we really don't know how it's going to be, so I look forward to it.

That thing about the Catholics is nothing but misinterpretation. Don't believe it, that's utterly retarted, if you ask me.

Why should God let people that don't believe in him into his "house"?

-ZainDustin