I Have Been Saved

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

A lot of it depends on the ruling class. Rome adopted Christianity as it's state religion, and if that hadn't happened, who knows what would have happened to Christianity.

Buddhism is a very interesting example. I've read an awful lot on Buddhism while learning about Chinese and, in particular, Japanese history. In Japan especially the rise of Buddhism took a similar form to that of Christianity in rome - the ruling noble class adopted it, largely because at that time Japan looked to China as the cultural capital of the world (probably fairly so, too), and at that point in her history, Japan imported a hell of a lot of Chinese culture - religion, art, music, etc.

What is most interesting of all, IMO at least, is how Japan incorporated Buddhism in with it's own native religion - what the Japanese now call Shinto. The two stood side-by-side and were by no means mutually exclusive. It was far later that Japan split Buddhism and Shinto in to two seperate religions, as part of the government's desire to restore Japanese tradition (ie. non-Chinese influenced tradition).

Interesting thoughts here...

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Hard to see how one can criticize someone because they refuse to make some leap of faith to either embrace a religion or declare them all false. I think you are hung up on agnosticism vs atheism vs christianity. Is it likely that the christians are completely wrong? Yeah, I think so. That doesn't mean there is no god.

Maybe the atheists are right. Maybe one of the hundreds of faiths around the globe have the right answer. The agnostic declares there is not enough evidence to adopt any of those stances and chooses to keep an open mind.

I'm not really meaning to criticize, although in re-reading I can see where that is so. If someone chooses to believe or not believe, I can understand where they're coming from with their choice while I don't necessarily agree with it. While I can understand where they're coming from, I don't understand how they arrived at their final destination, so to speak. I'm an atheist who still searches for alternatives. I would be willing to change my mind if some credible evidence were to be revealed or some logical argument were to be made without the "leap of faith".

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

And us agnostics are like those losers who are fans of the Yankees even when they don't live near the NYC area, just because they're the best team and most likely to come out on top.

Actually, to stretch the metaphor--a better analogy might be the Sabermetric vs Physical Scouting debate for player projection in baseball.

Some of the agnostics are uncomfortable with evaluating players just on feel, yet at the same time understand the limitations of statistical analysis.

The other agnostics? Well, they don't even follow sports at all.


Yes, now I've done it: we now have religion, politics, mentions of the middle east, HA, FOFC banning policies, and now sabermetrics in this thread. We now need jbmagic to "cowboy up" and say something "cocky and funny" about Maximum Football and affirmative action, before he refuses to accept a bannination...

[DrAFTjunkie]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Hmmm. OK, I'm interested in which contemporary historical sources support David, Mary, and Jesus? The fact that there wasn't any (that I'm aware of, at least) was one of the big alarm bells for me years ago.

Wow, didn't see this post last night--probably because it came at the same exact minute as Render's. Sorry about that.

All said that there was evidence as to their actual existence from sources that don't give a hoot about furthering christianity--the first that comes to mind is the Koran. Should I be basing my theories on these historical sources? Not sure if that's where the truth lies either, man. But if you wanna go there, how about the History Channel? I've seen plenty about King David and Jesus--right down to the speculation of the height and skin color of the J man. I've never seen any scholor call their existence into question and I'm wondering where you've gotten the information to form your theories. I'm not saying that the three aforemention people were what christians say they are, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't buy into much history from most any source because it's all BS anyway. All of my texts in school were full of lies and crap, so I really can't see why you'd need contemporary historical sources to verify much of anything.

[RedKingGold]

You all still have plenty of time to repent until the end.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

You all still have plenty of time to repent until the end.

That's another thing I don't get about being "saved". Why not just wait till you're on your deathbed to repent everything? Do whatever the hell you want for 75 years and then take it all back. You'll end up in the same place according to them.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's another thing I don't get about being "saved". Why not just wait till you're on your deathbed to repent everything? Do whatever the hell you want for 75 years and then take it all back. You'll end up in the same place according to them.

Think of it as the difference between saying "I'm sorry" and actually meaning it.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's another thing I don't get about being "saved". Why not just wait till you're on your deathbed to repent everything? Do whatever the hell you want for 75 years and then take it all back. You'll end up in the same place according to them.

That's also assuming you die of natural causes/have some idea that the end is near.

Not everybody gets to go out in such calm fashion. Or unfortunately with all their wits even if they die of old age.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Arguably God loves rock and roll, and simply couldn't wait for these guys to die of natural causes so he could get an awesome jam session going in Heaven....

Wonder if god is willing to make a multi-player trade then.

[RedKingGold]

Anyone else find it interesting that this thread is littered with inidividuals who identify themselves as "non-Christians" trying to tell everyone what Christianity really means and what Christians really do?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Anyone else find it interesting that this thread is littered with inidividuals who identify themselves as "non-Christians" trying to tell everyone what Christianity really means and what Christians really do?

No one knows what it really means because it changes all the time. Once society gets sick of it or science proves something wrong, the meanings of it change to fit in with today's standards. That is the beauty of Christianity, if something threatens it, you just change what it is.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No one knows what it really means because it changes all the time. Once society gets sick of it or science proves something wrong, the meanings of it change to fit in with today's standards. That is the beauty of Christianity, if something threatens it, you just change what it is.

Religion in itself is intertwined with society and one does not grow without the other. I wonder if it is perhaps the other way around. Society grows impatient with Christianity and religion in general for refusing to bend and shape to modern trends.

As an aside, you frequently use phrases such as "all, none, or some" when posting. Your point would be more effective if you followed up your broad statements with some form of example.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Anyone else find it interesting that this thread is littered with inidividuals who identify themselves as "non-Christians" trying to tell everyone what Christianity really means and what Christians really do?

Very much so. Always happens and it is why I don't participate.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Anyone else find it interesting that this thread is littered with inidividuals who identify themselves as "non-Christians" trying to tell everyone what Christianity really means and what Christians really do?

So which one is the real christianity?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So which one is the real christianity?

The one where Christ is involved.

Seriously though, isn't that chart just evidence that civilization has interpreted Christianity and other religions differently during different time periods?

[CraigSca]

I still read this thread, though I border on whether to respond or just to leave well enough alone with some of the tangential conversations.

I do, however, notice a general disdain from some who just can't stand that fact I am where I am. So far, among other things, I've been told I'm gullible and lacking in intelligence. I'm always slightly surprised when people feel the need to go on the attack, but it comes with the territory, I suppose.

Anyway, thanks to most of you for keeping the conversation civil and without name-calling.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I still read this thread, though I border on whether to respond or just to leave well enough alone with some of the tangential conversations.

I do, however, notice a general disdain from some who just can't stand that fact I am where I am. So far, among other things, I've been told I'm gullible and lacking in intelligence. I'm always slightly surprised when people feel the need to go on the attack, but it comes with the territory, I suppose.

Anyway, thanks to most of you for keeping the conversation civil and without name-calling.

+1 and why I waited until page seven to comment further on the "Christians are dumb" circle-jerk among a few select posters.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Religion in itself is intertwined with society and one does not grow without the other. I wonder if it is perhaps the other way around. Society grows impatient with Christianity and religion in general for refusing to bend and shape to modern trends.

As an aside, you frequently use phrases such as "all, none, or some" when posting. Your point would be more effective if you followed up your broad statements with some form of example.

I believe that religion holds back society. It can hold it for so long before overwhelming pressure forces it to change.

But that brings up a bigger question. If Christianity is bending to shape modern trends, how can it maintain confidence amongst followers? Shouldn't your religion be what it is and not something that constantly changes?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I believe that religion holds back society. It can hold it for so long before overwhelming pressure forces it to change.

How has religion held back society? By imputing some moral code that you personally don't believe in?

But that brings up a bigger question. If Christianity is bending to shape modern trends, how can it maintain confidence amongst followers? Shouldn't your religion be what it is and not something that constantly changes?

Again, I'd argue that religion does not change, but individual (shaped by society) perception of religion changes from generation to generation.

Confidence is maintained for the simple reason that believing in something is good for our individual lives. You may disagree with what I believe in, but that does not and should not take away from what I personally believe exists.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

How has religion held back society? By imputing some moral code that you personally don't believe in?

Lets look at science. Trying to keep the teaching of evolution out of schools. Not allowing stem cells to be used. Executing those who came up with scientific discoveries that were against the Church beliefs.

Where would science be today if men like Galileo weren't arrested for their discoveries? Or if others had been encouraged to discover the truth and not scared away?

That's just science, and a small sampling of it. I don't think you can look at what the Taliban did to Afghanistan and say that religion didn't hold back society.

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Again, I'd argue that religion does not change, but individual (shaped by society) perception of religion changes from generation to generation.

Confidence is maintained for the simple reason that believing in something is good for our individual lives. You may disagree with what I believe in, but that does not and should not take away from what I personally believe exists.

But religion does change. It constantly changes to determine what should be taken literally or not. The Earth was 6,000 years old according to early Religious leaders, but that changed as evidence proved otherwise. It was told the Earth was stationary and everything revolved around it. That changed when evidence showed otherwise.

You can look at the Protestant Reformation for some major changes to Christianity. If a religion is the word of God, should it not be the same throughout the years? If I believed in a God, I'd want his rules, his facts to remain consistent throughout history.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

The one where Christ is involved.

Seriously though, isn't that chart just evidence that civilization has interpreted Christianity and other religions differently during different time periods?

To me, it shows that no one seems to agree on what the real christianity is, therefor you have all these different sects.

However, I do get your point though.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I still read this thread, though I border on whether to respond or just to leave well enough alone with some of the tangential conversations.

I do, however, notice a general disdain from some who just can't stand that fact I am where I am. So far, among other things, I've been told I'm gullible and lacking in intelligence. I'm always slightly surprised when people feel the need to go on the attack, but it comes with the territory, I suppose.

Anyway, thanks to most of you for keeping the conversation civil and without name-calling.

I don't think anyone was saying anything deragatory. The intelligence level between believers and non-believers has been studied. It's not a negative jab, just something that happens. It also doesn't say that someone who believes isn't intelligent, just that statistically there is a higher probability they aren't.

And gullible is just a matter of opinion and not a completely negative trait. I do believe that in 2009, with all the scientific information available, it would take someone a little gullible to believe in walking on water, talking snakes, Noah's Ark, and so on. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it takes a much more open mind.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think anyone was saying anything deragatory. The intelligence level between believers and non-believers has been studied. It's not a negative jab, just something that happens. It also doesn't say that someone who believes isn't intelligent, just that statistically there is a higher probability they aren't.

I am now convinced that you (just you Rainmaker, not everyone else who may agree with the jist if not the substance of your post) is simply a troll.

You keep citing things as "facts" without providing any evidence behind it. Where are these "studies?" Please find them for me and show me who did them.

And gullible is just a matter of opinion and not a completely negative trait. I do believe that in 2009, with all the scientific information available, it would take someone a little gullible to believe in walking on water, talking snakes, Noah's Ark, and so on. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it takes a much more open mind.

I bet I can point to studies that people who do believe in walking on water, talking snakes, Noah's Ark, and so on are also no gullible but also well-rounded people who do not fit the "Jerry-Falwell/Jim Bakker" box that you are trying to shoehorn all Christians into.

I think you are the one that needs the open mind, sir.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Let me google that for you

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Let me google that for you

I did not know that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I am now convinced that you (just you Rainmaker, not everyone else who may agree with the jist if not the substance of your post) is simply a troll.

You keep citing things as "facts" without providing any evidence behind it. Where are these "studies?" Please find them for me and show me who did them.

Here you go:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cbd026da77245c

You can see how religious affiliation declines with education:

http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quickta...tKey=gss04%3A1

DanGarion is the one who mentioned it and I simply said there were studies to show it was true. If you disagree with the studies, fine, but don't call me a troll for backing up his statement.

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I bet I can point to studies that people who do believe in walking on water, talking snakes, Noah's Ark, and so on are also no gullible but also well-rounded people who do not fit the "Jerry-Falwell/Jim Bakker" box that you are trying to shoehorn all Christians into.

I think you are the one that needs the open mind, sir.

I'm not saying they aren't well-rounded people. Nor am I saying they aren't great people. It wasn't meant to be an insult in anyway. I'm simply saying it takes a much more open and trusting mind to believe in some of that stuff. Isn't that the major component behind faith?

Trust me, I wish everyday that I was more open-minded and truly believed in that stuff. I wish I had faith. But unfortunately I don't.

[panerd]

Sorry but if one wants to believe there is a higher power and that Jesus Christ makes them a better person than more power to them and I am glad they are happy and don't question their intelligence one bit.

Once you start believing in the talking snake or an Ark with a pair of every species in the world or that God has actually spoken to you than you are seriously not very bright or mentally insane. Just like if you believe in unicorns or Robin Hood. The Bible is a collection of stories with great morals, but it didn't happen! I am not certain there isn't a God but I am 100% certain in this.

[Schmidty]

This has become sort of an atheist circle jerk. Pretty amusing!!!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think that's fine, but the problem comes when the fans of your team want non-football fans to live life by their team's rules. That is really my only problem with organized religion. It's the forcing of people to study their fantasy science and discriminating against members of society because your book says so.

But on a personal level, don't you want it to be more than a guess? And if it is a guess, wouldn't you want to make an educated guess? To pick the team that has the most scientific evidence behind it?

And do you want to live your life based on their rules simply because other people in your area do it too? I personally don't think that this life is just "practice", so I intend to make the most of it. I'm not going to hold back on what I eat or what I want to do because some people in my area believe it's wrong.

1. Honestly, since I've already said I self-identify as a believer of the dominant religion in my society, why should I care about the rest of these questions? You can chafe at the social norms imposed by the dominant religion in your society all you want. Doesn't matter to be, because I believe. (And if I was on the other end of the question, I'd chafe, too. But since I'm not: who cares?)

2. The whole point of being a believer is that you don't think you're guessing. You believe you're right based on the mix of evidence, anecdote and personal experience you've encountered in your lifetime. Belief doesn't have to be rational to overcome existential angst. It just has to be authentic. My wife heavily self-identifies as a wiccan. I think she's an idiot and that Wicca is the religious equivalent of a Hallmark holiday, but it cures her issues of existential angst.

Hell, we just elected a president based on flimsy promises and hope...with absolutely no scientific or otherwise objective evidence that he's going to be better than the last guy. Belief is a powerful thing.

3. As for the bit about being forced to live by other people's rules just because they subscribe to them: I do that every day of my life. I'd rather wear jeans to work than business attire. I'd rather show up to work drunk half the time rather than sober. I'd like to stand up at boring meetings and say, "This is so fucking stupid. Just make a decision, for God's sake!!!" But I don't. Why? Because I want the benefits that come with the place I work by playing the same game generations of men and women who came before me have played.

Really, when bands of armed religious thugs start showing up at your door because you're having sex with your girlfriend or at my door because I used the word "fuck" on a message board, then I'll be right there with you about what a pain in the ass religious intolerance is.
Until then, people can think what they want about how I live my life. They can even tell me how wrong it is and risk me telling them they're both an idiot and rude. (I've got plenty of practice at this, since I'm a smoker. You know they don't let me smoke in my office? I have to go outside. In the cold! Not only that, I have to completely leave my employer's property and walk around the block or go sit in my car -- all because some psycho yahoo's decided that smoking is inappropriate. There's even some people who are pushing legislation to give the state the ability to take my kids out of my home because I might dare to smoke around them...so, you tell me, which should I be worried about more? Public health nazis who want to take away my kids or people who look down their nose at me because they think I'm on my way to hell because I use the word "fuck" or don't go to church often enough?)

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by DrAFTjunkie

Wow, didn't see this post last night--probably because it came at the same exact minute as Render's. Sorry about that.

All said that there was evidence as to their actual existence from sources that don't give a hoot about furthering christianity--the first that comes to mind is the Koran. Should I be basing my theories on these historical sources? Not sure if that's where the truth lies either, man. But if you wanna go there, how about the History Channel? I've seen plenty about King David and Jesus--right down to the speculation of the height and skin color of the J man. I've never seen any scholor call their existence into question and I'm wondering where you've gotten the information to form your theories. I'm not saying that the three aforemention people were what christians say they are, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't buy into much history from most any source because it's all BS anyway. All of my texts in school were full of lies and crap, so I really can't see why you'd need contemporary historical sources to verify much of anything.

OK, thinking purely from a historical perspective rather than a religious one, contemporary historical sources are the single most important piece of evidence used to determine whether something actually happened. A lot of what made it in to the NT was written, at a generous estimate, several decades after the events they describe. The Koran was put to paper a hell of along time after the events of the NT. Christianity was established a long time before the rise of Islam.

The NT contains a lot of spectacular stories (particularly those involving Jesus directly), yet none can be verified from other sources excluding the NT (which, itself, is not contemporary). This includes the very person of Jesus, Mary, etc. This is completely different from other historical figures such as, to use a common example, Caesar, with whom we have things like entire buildings errected during his life and in his name, writings from contemporary historians, coins, etc.

And it's not that it's because there just doesn't exist sources from that region of the world during that time period. Philo Judaeus was a Jewish historian who lived roughly 20 BC through 50 AD. Pliny the Elder was another historian who lived 20ishAD through 70AD. Seneca was 4 BC through 65 AD. None of their writings mention Jesus even once, which is, even a believer would have to admit, quite extraordinairy, especially given their magnitude.

The fact that your school history books (and especially the "documentaries" you see on the History Channel, as anyone who knows anything about the topics they discuss will no doubt agree with) were full of crap is EXACTLY why you need to look at contemporary sources to try and get to the truth of the matter.

Again to use Japanese history (sorry, but it's my main interest ), there are a series of 'war tales' (gunki monogatari) that were, for many centuries, basically considered history books. The two most imporant ones, the Heike Monogatari and the Taiheiki, were originally put to paper not long after the events they describe (perhaps even during), but underwent modifications and additions for perhaps a century or more until they reached their current form. Sounds familiar right.

It was only much more recently that contemporary diaries, temple records, etc. were cross-checked with events from these war tales, that it was discovered that what actually happened did not, in a lot of cases, match up with what was written in these tales. Characters were invented, real people were positioned in places we know that they couldn't have been, and the victories and defeats of entire armies was credited to prayers and various other spectacular feats, when we now know they had a much more humble cause.

These war tales date from the 12th and 14th centuries. How much worse for something that is 2,000 years old?

And, BTW, I'm not actually claiming that Jesus and his crew didn't exist. I don't know for sure one way or the other, but I consider it extremely doubtful that the stories of his life would arise from nowhere. I do think that it's impossible to know what the Historical Jesus would have been like. Obviously I think that the tales in the NT are incredibly exaggerated and in many cases completely fabricated.

If there was even a single piece of contemporary evidence that correlated with one of the fantastic events from the NT, I'd be forced to give some serious thought to my stance on Christianity. But then, the same is true for every major religion that is filled with stories no less amazing than those in the NT, with the very same lack of contemporary evidence.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

This has become sort of an atheist circle jerk. Pretty amusing!!!

And may our seed sow the way to enlightenment.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Drake

1. Honestly, since I've already said I self-identify as a believer of the dominant religion in my society, why should I care about the rest of these questions? You can chafe at the social norms imposed by the dominant religion in your society all you want. Doesn't matter to be, because I believe. (And if I was on the other end of the question, I'd chafe, too. But since I'm not: who cares?)

2. The whole point of being a believer is that you don't think you're guessing. You believe you're right based on the mix of evidence, anecdote and personal experience you've encountered in your lifetime. Belief doesn't have to be rational to overcome existential angst. It just has to be authentic. My wife heavily self-identifies as a wiccan. I think she's an idiot and that Wicca is the religious equivalent of a Hallmark holiday, but it cures her issues of existential angst.

Hell, we just elected a president based on flimsy promises and hope...with absolutely no scientific or otherwise objective evidence that he's going to be better than the last guy. Belief is a powerful thing.

3. As for the bit about being forced to live by other people's rules just because they subscribe to them: I do that every day of my life. I'd rather wear jeans to work than business attire. I'd rather show up to work drunk half the time rather than sober. I'd like to stand up at boring meetings and say, "This is so fucking stupid. Just make a decision, for God's sake!!!" But I don't. Why? Because I want the benefits that come with the place I work by playing the same game generations of men and women who came before me have played.

Really, when bands of armed religious thugs start showing up at your door because you're having sex with your girlfriend or at my door because I used the word "fuck" on a message board, then I'll be right there with you about what a pain in the ass religious intolerance is.
Until then, people can think what they want about how I live my life. They can even tell me how wrong it is and risk me telling them they're both an idiot and rude. (I've got plenty of practice at this, since I'm a smoker. You know they don't let me smoke in my office? I have to go outside. In the cold! Not only that, I have to completely leave my employer's property and walk around the block or go sit in my car -- all because some psycho yahoo's decided that smoking is inappropriate. There's even some people who are pushing legislation to give the state the ability to take my kids out of my home because I might dare to smoke around them...so, you tell me, which should I be worried about more? Public health nazis who want to take away my kids or people who look down their nose at me because they think I'm on my way to hell because I use the word "fuck" or don't go to church often enough?)

I agree with some of what you say. I think the public health nazis are just as bad as the creationist nazis. I guess what bothers me more about religion is that at least the public health nazis are basing their evidence off something real. Despite their annoyances, they are at least trying to prevent someone from hurting someone else.

But when people try to change our science books to include creationism and question evolution, it makes our society stupid. When you ban stem cell research, it potentially harms the future health of people. When you ban gay marriage, you discriminate against someone. So yes, the health nazis do go beyond what they should and interfere in my life, but at least they aren't making the country less safe and stupid.

I don't really care about what someone believes. My Aunt and Uncle are a former Priest and Nun who I get along with great. I'm not about to get them into the hardcore porn market, and they're not going to get me to Church on Sundays. Live and let live is what we should all go by. I only get upset when a person's personal beliefs infringe on my rights to do something. It doesn't matter to me whether they are doing it because they don't want me to get cancer or because their fairy tale said so.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

You all still have plenty of time to repent until the end.

What happens if they don't?

[Drake]

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I'm not a creationist or a young-earther. I'm not even really an Intelligent Design guy. I do believe that God created the universe via the mechanism of the Big Bang and let it unwind via the mechanism of evolution...exactly as scientific understanding and research has explained it.

(My father is, but we agree to disagree, as we do with abortion, gay rights and just about every other polarizing/politicized topic.)

Then again, I also believe that the book of Jonah is an obvious morality play (rather than a true story), that Genesis is largely a collection of competing creation myths that had cultural value to a bedouin people and has been largely misinterpreted by Western Civilization and that a literalist/fundamentalist reading of the Bible robs it of the best of its wisdom.

But at the end of the day, what I believe most is that God is bigger than my imagination, that he is looking farther ahead and with more wisdom than I can fathom, and that the best part of faith is believing that he is capable of hashing all of this shit out both to his satisfaction and in a way that will ultimately be better for me than anything I could have planned out for myself, my species or my world. I'm more than content to accept the notion that he knows what he's doing, even if I don't understand it.

I also believe that at least half of what I think about "who God is" and "how God does his business" is completely wrong. And that's okay, because if God is only as smart as I am -- or even only as smart as 2,000 years of collected theological wisdom -- he's not really the sort of God I want to follow, anyway.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I'm not a creationist or a young-earther. I'm not even really an Intelligent Design guy. I do believe that God created the universe via the mechanism of the Big Bang and let it unwind via the mechanism of evolution...exactly as scientific understanding and research has explained it.

That is a pretty safe position to take. It may be quite a while before we figure out what happened before that, so you won't have to completely revise your theological stance for a while (if ever in your lifetime). Too bad God didn't tell the Pope or Jesus those kinds of things a long time ago, it might have made a big difference. Imagine the jump we could have made from a science perspective if we did not have to struggle for these scientific gains over the years.

Our of curiosity, for anyone reading this thread, when did the Catholics decide they were going along with evolution? Did they first present the theory as the word of God and the scientists were able to make sense of it? Or was the scientific evidence mounting before God finally came clean about it? Or has God been silent on the matter completely and the Pope decided to make up his own mind about it?

[Drake]

That is a pretty safe position to take. It may be quite a while before we figure out what happened before that, so you won't have to completely revise your theological stance for a while (if ever in your lifetime). Too bad God didn't tell the Pope or Jesus those kinds of things a long time ago, it might have made a big difference. Imagine the jump we could have made from a science perspective if we did not have to struggle for these scientific gains over the years.

Nah. The beauty of starting with the belief that God did it means that I can update my mechanisms as often as the scientific community does. It's not that big a deal to assume we'll know more tomorrow than we did today. If I can revise my thinking about genetics every time there's a breakthrough without deciding I have to throw out the entire collected knowledge base of the Scientific Revolution, then making this change is a piece of cake.

People used to think that x-rays were safe. I didn't have to totally revise my view of scientific thought and the whole corpus of Western knowledge when they changed their mind on that.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree with some of what you say. I think the public health nazis are just as bad as the creationist nazis. I guess what bothers me more about religion is that at least the public health nazis are basing their evidence off something real. Despite their annoyances, they are at least trying to prevent someone from hurting someone else.

But when people try to change our science books to include creationism and question evolution, it makes our society stupid. When you ban stem cell research, it potentially harms the future health of people. When you ban gay marriage, you discriminate against someone. So yes, the health nazis do go beyond what they should and interfere in my life, but at least they aren't making the country less safe and stupid.

I don't really care about what someone believes. My Aunt and Uncle are a former Priest and Nun who I get along with great. I'm not about to get them into the hardcore porn market, and they're not going to get me to Church on Sundays. Live and let live is what we should all go by. I only get upset when a person's personal beliefs infringe on my rights to do something. It doesn't matter to me whether they are doing it because they don't want me to get cancer or because their fairy tale said so.

RainMaker, you've pretty much summed up how I feel. Well done.

Personally for me, as an atheist, I don't wish for the irradication of all religions, just the irradication of it interfering with other peoples lives. And that's goes for any religion, not just christianity.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I believe that religion holds back society. It can hold it for so long before overwhelming pressure forces it to change.

But that brings up a bigger question. If Christianity is bending to shape modern trends, how can it maintain confidence amongst followers? Shouldn't your religion be what it is and not something that constantly changes?

This is actually something I've discussed at length with my wife because she believes in an unchanging church/bible where as I believe Christianity should evolve and has done so previously.

For instance the obvious Old/New Testament, but even since then there are huge changes in interpretation.

For instance Pigs were off the menu according to the bible, but thats ok because people have rationalised that they were banned because the meat couldn't be kept safely in those days but can now.

Showing that mankind has effectively over-ruled what was placed down.

I've argued with my wife that a similar stance should be taken regarding homosexuals/gay marriage and suchlike - in biblical times dying out was a big problem for any race and as such breeding was a big thing to encourage ... hence disliking homosexuality and the various passages about breeding etc.

These days over-population is more of an issue so surely in a similar way to the whole pork thing the Christian church should just get over itself and let people live life according to their believed sexuality, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone and makes them happy whats the big deal?

(please note that in many churches in England it ISNT a big deal at all - the Anglican church for instance has homosexual clergy men; however since moving to America I've noted a very strong anti-gay aspect to sermons at several chruches I've attended - why is it so much stronger a sentiment here than in Europe?)

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nah. The beauty of starting with the belief that God did it means that I can update my mechanisms as often as the scientific community does. It's not that big a deal to assume we'll know more tomorrow than we did today. If I can revise my thinking about genetics every time there's a breakthrough without deciding I have to throw out the entire collected knowledge base of the Scientific Revolution, then making this change is a piece of cake.

People used to think that x-rays were safe. I didn't have to totally revise my view of scientific thought and the whole corpus of Western knowledge when they changed their mind on that.

So, as God becomes responsible for less and less as the years go by, is it even reasonable that there will always be something to attribute to God? I know the answer is that this is a moving target that will always be moved to just beyond what we already know, thereby ensuring that something shall always be attributable to a deity.

[Marc Vaughan]

PS - Just to add something light hearted into the thread in case anyone hasn't seen it bofore .... Jesus & the terminator together in the ultimate action movie ...
Terminator & Jesus - Video

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So, as God becomes responsible for less and less as the years go by, is it even reasonable that there will always be something to attribute to God? I know the answer is that this is a moving target that will always be moved to just beyond what we already know, thereby ensuring that something shall always be attributable to a deity.

I don't see how God becomes responsible for less and less. In my view, he set the mechanism up from the start and it worked the way he set it up. We're just uncovering the details as we go along.

You seem to be positing a view similar to the idea that when FOF runs a sim, it's really Jim in the guts of your computer manipulating every play. I tend to think Jim just wrote the code and the game behaves the way he designed it to behave.

As we unravel how some of those things work and develop strategies to understand/explain/account for them so we can use them to our benefit, we're not changing the code...we're just understanding better how the game works, and through that vehicle, getting a small glimpse into how Jim thinks.

Thus, when the combine numbers turn out to mean something completely different than I thought they meant, I don't suddenly decide that FOF is a piece of crap. I just factor the new understanding into my draft strategy.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(please note that in many churches in England it ISNT a big deal at all - the Anglican church for instance has homosexual clergy men; however since moving to America I've noted a very strong anti-gay aspect to sermons at several chruches I've attended - why is it so much stronger a sentiment here than in Europe?)

I think part of the problem is that this country has a lot of Puritanical beliefs that are still present. That's why sex is so taboo as is nudity here in America. I mean, look at the anuerisms people had when Janet Jackson's COVERED nipple was exposed during a Super Bowl half time show.

I hate to say this, but, I just don't think Americans as a whole, are very open minded or tolerant of other people's beliefs or ways of life and are very scared of progressive changes, plus a healthy dose of fear mongering and you get the anti-gay sentiment we Americans have proudly displayed time and time again.

This is just my opinion, but, I don't think it's far off. Someone else may be able to explain it a little bit more eloquently than I can.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This is actually something I've discussed at length with my wife because she believes in an unchanging church/bible where as I believe Christianity should evolve and has done so previously.

For instance the obvious Old/New Testament, but even since then there are huge changes in interpretation.

For instance Pigs were off the menu according to the bible, but thats ok because people have rationalised that they were banned because the meat couldn't be kept safely in those days but can now.

Showing that mankind has effectively over-ruled what was placed down.

I've argued with my wife that a similar stance should be taken regarding homosexuals/gay marriage and suchlike - in biblical times dying out was a big problem for any race and as such breeding was a big thing to encourage ... hence disliking homosexuality and the various passages about breeding etc.

These days over-population is more of an issue so surely in a similar way to the whole pork thing the Christian church should just get over itself and let people live life according to their believed sexuality, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone and makes them happy whats the big deal?

(please note that in many churches in England it ISNT a big deal at all - the Anglican church for instance has homosexual clergy men; however since moving to America I've noted a very strong anti-gay aspect to sermons at several chruches I've attended - why is it so much stronger a sentiment here than in Europe?)

I guess my confusion would be as to "what's the point?". If you aren't going to agree with what the Bible says, not going to follow it's rules, and not going to believe in what it says, why be a Christian? It just seems hypocritical to say you are a Christian but you don't agree with anything that it stands for.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

PS - Just to add something light hearted into the thread in case anyone hasn't seen it bofore .... Jesus & the terminator together in the ultimate action movie ...
Terminator & Jesus - Video

Excellent!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't see how God becomes responsible for less and less. In my view, he set the mechanism up from the start and it worked the way he set it up. We're just uncovering the details as we go along.

You do not know that less and less has been attributed to God (and deities in general) as our scientific understanding has grown? I understand this may not be true of your own personal view, but it is true that people once attributed a whole lot to God (or some deity).

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

What happens if they don't?

No cake and ice cream.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here you go:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cbd026da77245c

You can see how religious affiliation declines with education:

http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quickta...tKey=gss04%3A1

DanGarion is the one who mentioned it and I simply said there were studies to show it was true. If you disagree with the studies, fine, but don't call me a troll for backing up his statement.

Surprise! I love where the sources came from. Obvious bias there.

I'm not saying they aren't well-rounded people. Nor am I saying they aren't great people. It wasn't meant to be an insult in anyway. I'm simply saying it takes a much more open and trusting mind to believe in some of that stuff. Isn't that the major component behind faith?

Trust me, I wish everyday that I was more open-minded and truly believed in that stuff. I wish I had faith. But unfortunately I don't.

True, and I like to think that my life will be happier because I believe in happiness and being a good person. But since we can't define what a good person is because we can't 'see" good, we should just stop trying, I guess.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

True, and I like to think that my life will be happier because I believe in happiness and being a good person. But since we can't define what a good person is because we can't 'see" good, we should just stop trying, I guess.

I have made this point a couple times in the thread. Not sure if you attribute this to God or not but why couldn't you thank yourself for being happy? This is my beef with Tarcone. He did it through his own strength and free will and maybe the help of his friends. That is even more incredible and a purpose to celebrate than some deity randomly choosing to speak to him.

[EagleFan]

So who has the better chance in the "afterlife"?

Person A who does not submit to the belief of god but lives a good life, including helping others along the way.

or

Person B who is a mass murderer but conveniently "finds god" shortly before his execution and asks to be forgiven for those sins.


I only want to believe in a god if the answer is person A. If the answer is person B that means that god is so egotistical that we must "believe and worship" in order to make it into his little afterlife club.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have made this point a couple times in the thread. Not sure if you attribute this to God or not but why couldn't you thank yourself for being happy? This is my beef with Tarcone. He did it through his own strength and free will and maybe the help of his friends. That is even more incredible and a purpose to celebrate than some deity randomly choosing to speak to him.

Why does it have to be black and white? Why can't I be happy because of my own decisions AND because I feel like God/Christ has an influence in my life.

That's the fun of free-will, my friend.