I Have Been Saved

[molson]

Originally Posted by 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.

Christianity definitely says B.

I also find that extremely off-putting, but hey, if there's a god, I don't know why we have this assumption that he's "good". God could be an egotistical, vengeful, mean god. But you still better worship him (if you believed in such a thing).

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by 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.

My own "personal" belief is that belief in God is professed through actions, not words.

Then again, I also believe that Catholic ideology has taken this too literally into thinking that individuals are saved through good works AND faith. I do believe that the "mass murderer" can be "saved" so to speak, but it's not as simple as shouting "I BELIEVE!" on your death bed. It's a peace you yourself have to make with God. Also, I do believe there is an atoning for your sins on Earth, but what that is is beyond our human comprehension.

Further, I do believe that a "supreme" being has the ability to long within our true hearts and go beyond our human words/actions. This is why it is hard to believe "stories" about walking on water, turning water into wine, etc. Human beings learn through comparison. For those to which faith alone is not enough, the inability to see or witness causes them to not believe.

For this reason, people are critical of God/religion/etc. because it is unexplainable by our human terms and rationale, yet that is all we have to work on while here on Earth.

As an aside, I also believe that people whom you would consider "non-Christians" can also be "saved" without accepting Christ. My reasoning is that the "superior being" is superior enough to be able to fight through cultural barriers that we as humans set up. Therefore, individuals can unknowingly be led by "Christ/God-like" actions without ever actually professing their belief in Christ/God.

But it's all about the true heart, and that is something that neither you nor I can judge.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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.

I guess you can. However post #1 of this thread basically states that he could not do it on his own and neither will any of us if we don't find Jesus. So I am kind of debating on that premise and not with you or CraigSca who may have more liberal views.

Sorry for quoting you and not making that clear.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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

What is bias?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What is bias?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What is bias?

I think it's this:

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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).

Again, who cares what "people" think? I'm only responsible for what I think, not some monolithic mass of "people". As far as I'm concerned, "people" ten years from now can give up on God completely. Them changing their minds isn't going to matter one whit to me.

I'm not disagreeing with you, of course. I just know that ultimately I'm only responsible for what I think and believe. Worrying about what other people think just ends up being a pain in my ass.

Ultimately, I figure that religion has survived at least 10,000 years of human social evolution, including the relatively short period since the Scientific Revolution. It clearly fills some innate need in our species by functioning as a lens through which we can view, interpret and understand both the physical world and our place in it. Science isn't going to change that. Science doesn't even *try* to change that. It's asking a completely different set of questions.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are too many people on all sides of the question (not FOFC people, but the same "people" as above) who get way too pissed off about other people's opinions. If we were talking about most anything other than religion, we'd be more than happy to let dumbasses be dumbasses for whatever dumbass reason they selected. My take on religious disagreements is really that simple: If you (not you personally, but "people") want to be a dumbass, go for it.

The only job I have in the entire universe is to live my life in such a way that I'm not a dumbass in my own eyes.

[Tekneek]

I fully agree with the concept of letting people believe whatever view they choose when it comes to religion. The problem is that there are way too many religious people that try to force their view upon others. They restrict the rights of people for reasons that have only to do with their religious views. They decide that others are subhuman purely because they do not share the same religious views.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Drake

The only job I have in the entire universe is to live my life in such a way that I'm not a dumbass in my own eyes.

Drake is one of my favorite people in FOFC.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I fully agree with the concept of letting people believe whatever view they choose when it comes to religion. The problem is that there are way too many religious people that try to force their view upon others. They restrict the rights of people for reasons that have only to do with their religious views. They decide that others are subhuman purely because they do not share the same religious views.

What I hear you really meaning is that non-religious types need to do a better job of organizing yourselves and getting a social agenda in place. That's where organized religion kicks your ass. Believers meet at least once a week to hash out what they believe and what they're going to do about it. We're legitimately excited enough about what we believe (i.e., our agenda, if you will) to set apart time every week to work on it, to plan, to figure out the best way to push our ideas into the social fabric.

Most other things people believe in, you're lucky if you can get people to show up for meetings once a month.

Y'all need to work on your strategerie. We've already claimed the Hell & Damnation motivator for our constituency, so you've got your work cut out for you.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by path12

Drake is one of my favorite people in FOFC.

I heart you.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Drake

What I hear you really meaning is that non-religious types need to do a better job of organizing yourselves and getting a social agenda in place. That's where organized religion kicks your ass. Believers meet at least once a week to hash out what they believe and what they're going to do about it. We're legitimately excited enough about what we believe (i.e., our agenda, if you will) to set apart time every week to work on it, to plan, to figure out the best way to push our ideas into the social fabric.

Most other things people believe in, you're lucky if you can get people to show up for meetings once a month.

Y'all need to work on your strategerie. We've already claimed the Hell & Damnation motivator for our constituency, so you've got your work cut out for you.

So very true Drake. Trying to get atheists to all agree on something is like herding cats.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Drake

Believers meet at least once a week to hash out what they believe and what they're going to do about it.

Drake, I hope you were in church last Sunday as they passed out the list of people we are to consider subhuman. I can forward you a copy if you need it.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Drake

What I hear you really meaning is that non-religious types need to do a better job of organizing yourselves and getting a social agenda in place.

No, not at all. What I am saying is exactly what I said. Religious people force their views upon others. Not that they are better organized at all. I doubt few people would really have a big problem with religion if it was a personal thing. Unfortunately, it has been used as an excuse to oppress others. That is a flaw in the character of religious people, not a flaw in those who don't join in.

[DrAFTjunkie]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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.

And a lot of times they're way off. Is it the best we've got, sure, but I've seen my fair share of inaccuracies, sensationalizm and boldfaced fictionalization in my time. A lot of it is bunk, just as a lot of the bible is bunk.

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.

No doubt, but a lot of it was written firsthand by a small band of Jesus's apostles when Christianity was still punishable by death. Why does it surprise you that it took so many years to see the light of day? It was unpopular and underground for a long time. My point in bringing up the Koran was to illustrate that a third party source, which weren't even Christians, mentioned Jesus and Mary in their text over a thousand years ago. Even the undecidely un-Chrisitans didn't deny their existence.

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 my high-school history book (published one year before I studied it) had a lot of spectacular stories too...some of which have actually been disproven. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "contemporary" but IMO, the more time passes, the more the story will change. Jesus lived 2000 years ago and there is no way that any contemporary history source is going to nail it at this point. Your Caeser argument isn't helping your point either because writings from contemporary historians are only going to be based on previous statements about a long dead man. Hell, I've actually heard a new theory that Brutus wasn't actually his assassin.

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.

I don't find it extraordinary at all. Firstly, none of these fellas lived long enough to actually experience what became Christianity. It was still very small and underground in 70 AD. They didn't have TV, newspapers, the internet, transportaiation, or anything that gave them access to anything but the small world in which they lived. It is entirely possible that none of them had ever heard of the man. And even if they did, would any non-religious historian give half a thought to reports of some carpenter performing miracles? They probably would've rolled their eyes and went back to doing what they were doing. And even if they were believers, I can bet that they weren't Christians, which would give them even less reason. All in all, I personally have never seen any source say that Jesus, Mary, etc. didn't exist, though I've seen plenty (secular and non) that say that they did.


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.

What the heck do you consider "contemporary sources" and why are they the be all end all for you. I'm not getting it. You keep saying that phrase, in one breath implying that you're talking about credible current sources of history, and then implying that writings about a long dead Caeser are "contemporary" and credible as well.

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?

Point taken, but I'm not trying to attribute any stories, or fables to anybody. I'm not a Christian, which I've clearly stated. I don't think Jesus was the son of god anymore than anybody else. I don't believe in an immaculate conception and I don't think I'm going to burn for not believing any of this. All I said was that there were mentioned stories of them in places that had no Christian agenda. Again, these mentions are undeniable.

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.


I agree 100%

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.

Christ (ha ha)I'm not saying that any of the reports are true, I for one, think they're not. I just thought it was unfair for Tarcone's beliefs to be thrashed by people who think they have all of the answers and that science is god. Science is a work in progress with many differing voices and probably always will be. For example: some say the T-Rex was the most ferocious and feared, and some say that he was a mere scavenger. Like many in this thread, I don't admire bible thumpers, but to respond by thumping an ever-changing school of science is just plain hypocriitical to me. Defending Tarcone was my only intent.

.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I didn't to be honest - this forum is one of the few ones I've visited where people actively try and show respect by and large to other peoples opinions and the level of debate is generally quite intelligent and some patience is shown to people with regards to posts.

(so in summary - this board rocks )

You mean, posts like these didn't do it for ya?

"Man U finish behind Arse!?! Game's broke!"
"Marc, were you and the lads pissed while makin' this shite?"
"How come you guys can't get the MLS right?"
"Not fair! Brought in Kaka, Robinho, Roons, Lamps, & Ronaldo and Tevez demands a transfer over playing time?!? What gives, Marc?"
"Will someone please, please, PLEASE, finally respond about the offside bug?"
"New tac! Guaranteed Euro Champs!!!"
"WTH? Why isn't Bulgaria third division playable?!?"
"This patch bloody blows!"
"I sat the bench on the reserve squad for my town club last season? Why'm I not in the game?"
"Don't buy, it's crap!"
"Training's wonked!"
"How come six months into game, it says I have to buy to go on?"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Drake

What I hear you really meaning is that non-religious types need to do a better job of organizing yourselves and getting a social agenda in place. That's where organized religion kicks your ass. Believers meet at least once a week to hash out what they believe and what they're going to do about it. We're legitimately excited enough about what we believe (i.e., our agenda, if you will) to set apart time every week to work on it, to plan, to figure out the best way to push our ideas into the social fabric.

Most other things people believe in, you're lucky if you can get people to show up for meetings once a month.

Y'all need to work on your strategerie. We've already claimed the Hell & Damnation motivator for our constituency, so you've got your work cut out for you.

Atheists are not going to get together. They don't believe in a God, they don't believe in a religion. Sitting around and discussing it would be silly. It's akin to a group of people who don't collect baseball cards getting together for gatherings.

Plus, Atheists don't really have a social agenda. They just don't want decisions that effect them to be based on fairy tales.

[RainMaker]

My belief is that if there is a God, and if there is a heaven, worship and that other stuff would have no factor in going to heaven. I just don't see how it could be fair to judge people who have all had different upbringings and access to information. A child who grows up in some rural part of Africa may never see a bible in his entire life, never know of a church, and never hear the name Jesus. So how could God judge him?

So if there is a God, I think he would simply judge a person by what they did in their life. Were they a good person, did they help others, did they make the quality of lives better for those that they came in contact with. I don't think I'd want to know a God who makes his decisions based on how many times you went to Church or whether you participated in a ceremony.

I believe if a God existed, there would be no heaven. We would simply be a piece of art to him. A giant Sim City of sorts. I doubt he'd be human or have a preference toward humans. He'd simply be an entity who started the universe and let the chips fall where they may. He would not care what you did in your daily lives, and he would not control it. When I turn on the news and see a 4 year old snatched from her home, raped, and murdered, it is clear to me that a God could not have control of our actions.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No, not at all. What I am saying is exactly what I said. Religious people force their views upon others. Not that they are better organized at all. I doubt few people would really have a big problem with religion if it was a personal thing. Unfortunately, it has been used as an excuse to oppress others. That is a flaw in the character of religious people, not a flaw in those who don't join in.

In defense of religion, I think everyone in one way or another forces their views on others. Democrats out there want us to fund welfare programs and raise minimum wages. Republicans want to send our kids to war for questionable reasons. You have groups like MADD who pushed to have the drinking law raised. Groups like PETA who don't want you eating meat. People are telling us where we can smoke and what we can cook in our restaurants.

I think religion gets a much tougher time because some of their views are outdated. Telling people that being gay is a choice and will destroy families. Telling schools not to teach basic sex education. Telling kids not to take birth control. Telling kids the Earth is 6,000 years old. If religious views weren't as outdated, I think most would treat them like any other group.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Drake

What I hear you really meaning is that non-religious types need to do a better job of organizing yourselves and getting a social agenda in place. That's where organized religion kicks your ass. Believers meet at least once a week to hash out what they believe and what they're going to do about it. We're legitimately excited enough about what we believe (i.e., our agenda, if you will) to set apart time every week to work on it, to plan, to figure out the best way to push our ideas into the social fabric.

America is far more fundamentalist than most of the Christian countries in Europe with regards to this sort of thing.

Its very common here for people to thank God and indeed most people don't believe you'd get elected as president without including some Christian stance in your campaign.

In England its the reverse - make a big thing about 'being saved' and 'talking with God regularly' and you wouldn't have a hope in heck of being made Prime Minister, as a society we prefer the person with the big red button to make decisions himself based on earthly information and common sense rather than word from above.

With regards to non-religious groups being better organised this is also more common in England I believe. For instance most villages/towns have non-religious groups (normally nominally business related) which try and do 'good' for the area they're based in, generally they're at least as active as churches and often more so.

Also on the promotional front there has just been an Aetheist bus campaign which has seriously gotten some churches knickers in a twist (which has helped the campaign considerably):
Atheist Bus - Official Website

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You mean, posts like these didn't do it for ya?
....

The SI boards are great for feedback on our games, giving inspiration for new versions and also importantly keeping us grounded

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

In England its the reverse - make a big thing about 'being saved' and 'talking with God regularly' and you wouldn't have a hope in heck of being made Prime Minister, as a society we prefer the person with the big red button to make decisions himself based on earthly information and common sense rather than word from above.

Indeed. I have followed the English Premiership pretty much since it started (not as closely every year, but to some degree every year since it was formed), and I don't think I have ever read about ANYBODY thanking God for winning it or avoiding relegation. It seems to be quite the American thing to thank God for success in professional sports, or pretty much anything that goes their way (winning the Lottery, winning a pass-throwing competition during half-time, etc). It has always struck me as odd that anyone presumes that God would even care about such mundane things when people are being murdered, raped, struck down with cancer, etc.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Indeed. I have followed the English Premiership pretty much since it started (not as closely every year, but to some degree every year since it was formed), and I don't think I have ever read about ANYBODY thanking God for winning it or avoiding relegation. It seems to be quite the American thing to thank God for success in professional sports, or pretty much anything that goes their way (winning the Lottery, winning a pass-throwing competition during half-time, etc). It has always struck me as odd that anyone presumes that God would even care about such mundane things when people are being murdered, raped, struck down with cancer, etc.

I can't speak for winning the lottery or anything, but it's my interpretation that athletes generally thank God for the gifts, talents, discipline, etc., that got them where they are today. The fact that they converted on the opportunity is just icing on the cake.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It has always struck me as odd that anyone presumes that God would even care about such mundane things when people are being murdered, raped, struck down with cancer, etc.

I've mentioned this in an earlier thread and this by no means will satisfy you. But our lives on earth are a mere pittance when it comes to eternity. No, I can't explain away why God would let bad things happen to "good" people, but I will say that God gives us the opportunity for a life eternal with Him as outlined in the Bible. If you bear with me for a moment, surely you'll agree that eternal happiness is much more important than the means by which death occurs.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

If you bear with me for a moment, surely you'll agree that eternal happiness is much more important than the means by which death occurs.

Assuming such a thing exists, I suppose. Since nobody inside that "eternal happiness" has yet been able to communicate with us in a way that can really be documented and held up as proof, and since they're not able to assist their loved ones in getting there (in any way that can be proven/demonstrated), it doesn't sound like "eternal happiness" to me. They get to spend eternity wondering if those they loved make the grade and get to join them. It begins to sound like some other mythological place, a place that some call Hell.

[Marc Vaughan]

If you bear with me for a moment, surely you'll agree that eternal happiness is much more important than the means by which death occurs.

Would you not also agree however that religions have most commonly been created and used/adopted by ruling classes in order to supress and control people within a society?

As such using an untestable 'heaven/hell' scenario is very useful as it puts off giving people something nice in the real-world with the promise of something after death.

(this doesn't mean that any particular religion is invalid obviously - but it shows why many intelligent people have a hard time taking them seriously when they've been used for ill purposes for so long - heck even today in America religions are used on a daily basis by politicians and sportsmen to curry favour imho - something which people 'praise' the individuals themselves for, even when their 'works' often show little to validate their supposed beliefs)

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Assuming such a thing exists, I suppose. Since nobody inside that "eternal happiness" has yet been able to communicate with us in a way that can really be documented and held up as proof, and since they're not able to assist their loved ones in getting there (in any way that can be proven/demonstrated), it doesn't sound like "eternal happiness" to me. They get to spend eternity wondering if those they loved make the grade and get to join them. It begins to sound like some other mythological place, a place that some call Hell.

And thus my first sentence in my reply to you.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Would you not also agree however that religions have most commonly been created and used/adopted by ruling classes in order to supress and control people within a society?

As such using an untestable 'heaven/hell' scenario is very useful as it puts off giving people something nice in the real-world with the promise of something after death.

(this doesn't mean that any particular religion is invalid obviously - but it shows why many intelligent people have a hard time taking them seriously when they've been used for ill purposes for so long - heck even today in America religions are used on a daily basis by politicians and sportsmen to curry favour imho - something which people 'praise' the individuals themselves for, even when their 'works' often show little to validate their supposed beliefs)

Well, I don't know if they've mostly been created to do that, but I will agree that when religion is in human hands (which, by definition it can't help be) there is, unfortunately, human frailty added to the mix. It's a conundrum, certainly. However, if people want to use religion for their own benefit, or to curry favor, than that's on them.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Well, I don't know if they've mostly been created to do that, but I will agree that when religion is in human hands (which, by definition it can't help be) there is, unfortunately, human frailty added to the mix. It's a conundrum, certainly. However, if people want to use religion for their own benefit, or to curry favor, than that's on them.

(sorry shouldn't have used 'created' really, bad choice - possibly 'influenced' might have been a less arguementative terms)

Very few religions remain as they were initally intended, for instance most Christians accept that the religion 'created' many celebrations and indeed changed the date of its founders birth (ie. Christmas is at the wrong time of year) just to help ease the conversions of pagans during its early days.

Another example of this can be found where the bible stresses 'No Idols' yet churches generally have loads of the darn things scattered about - images of Jesus (which is borderline acceptable - but wasn't what it seems he'd have really wanted imho) but also in Catholic churches practically an entire army of saints and suchlike to be prayed to (which is exactly what the bible says to avoid).

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(sorry shouldn't have used 'created' really, bad choice - possibly 'influenced' might have been a less arguementative terms)

Very few religions remain as they were initally intended, for instance most Christians accept that the religion 'created' many celebrations and indeed changed the date of its founders birth (ie. Christmas is at the wrong time of year) just to help ease the conversions of pagans during its early days.

Another example of this can be found where the bible stresses 'No Idols' yet churches generally have loads of the darn things scattered about - images of Jesus (which is borderline acceptable - but wasn't what it seems he'd have really wanted imho) but also in Catholic churches practically an entire army of saints and suchlike to be prayed to (which is exactly what the bible says to avoid).

Oh yeah, I fully understand and acknowledge the changing of dates and certainly religion rightly or wrongly has been influenced by humans.

As far as idols are concerned I'm right on board with the Bible and personally don't subscribe to them.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

My belief is that there is a God, but our concept of God is almost entirely self-serving (as man is known to do.) Is the Bible the actual & literal word of God, as told to certain individuals who word-for-word noted his exact prophesy, or is it the word of man trying to make life better through belief? I say the later, but that doesn't mean that it is not the word of God in spirit and that He gave these individuals the ability and tools to write what would be good for man.

What is God? We get the image of an old man, but considering that God is not man, who is to say? God's entire set of values may not be even close to our own. It is entirely possible that we are like an ant farm to him. A society that he wants to succeed, but sits back and allows to function on its own. It's also possible that He has the greatest sense of humor ever, and every time we catch ourselves looking stupid for no reason whatsoever saying "why me?" he's getting a good laugh!

What of Jesus? Is he the literal son of God, placed in the womb of a virgin? Or was that a story meant to make an extraordinary man seem mystical to those who need something more than a great man to follow? Whether the story that showed up centuries later of virgin birth is true or not it does not negate the impact of the teachings of one man who wanted to help people have a closer relationship to God.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(sorry shouldn't have used 'created' really, bad choice - possibly 'influenced' might have been a less arguementative terms)

Very few religions remain as they were initally intended, for instance most Christians accept that the religion 'created' many celebrations and indeed changed the date of its founders birth (ie. Christmas is at the wrong time of year) just to help ease the conversions of pagans during its early days.

Another example of this can be found where the bible stresses 'No Idols' yet churches generally have loads of the darn things scattered about - images of Jesus (which is borderline acceptable - but wasn't what it seems he'd have really wanted imho) but also in Catholic churches practically an entire army of saints and suchlike to be prayed to (which is exactly what the bible says to avoid).

All of these are examples of the phenomenon of "syncretization" in religion--where religious practices of two religions are melded or one co-opts the other. Christmas is one example where well-established pagan practices were co-opted to honor Christianity's founder. Could be a way to ease new converts into Christianity, or it could just have been practices that refused to die. The elevation of the Virgin Mary to near-godlike status is often thought of as a manifestation of worship of the Mother Goddess by Western & Northern European pagans. Another well-known example is the continued worship of Mayan gods, who are now thought of as "saints" by Mayan converts to Catholicism.

Again, this is not unique to Christianity--the example of the combination of Buddhism and indigenous religion in Japan (which is also quite common in the expression of religion throughout East and Southeast Asia), was mentioned before.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Another well-known example is the continued worship of Mayan gods, who are now thought of as "saints" by Mayan converts to Catholicism.

.

I am pretty sure we are building a wall to keep the Mayans out of this country though, so we should be pretty safe from those people.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I've mentioned this in an earlier thread and this by no means will satisfy you. But our lives on earth are a mere pittance when it comes to eternity. No, I can't explain away why God would let bad things happen to "good" people, but I will say that God gives us the opportunity for a life eternal with Him as outlined in the Bible. If you bear with me for a moment, surely you'll agree that eternal happiness is much more important than the means by which death occurs.

Bearing with you, yes eternity is more important than the means of death.

But you can't just skip over the why question.

Why would a God who is loving, caring, good, and omnipotent allow good people to get cancer? Why would such a God allow toddlers to get cancer? Why would such a God allow infants to get cancer? If these people are good and are going to be allowed into Heaven for eternity, then what purpose does allowing them to suffer like that serve?

And sorry, but "we can't understand God who is so great" doesn't work. If God controls everything, then he gave me this brain that refuses to accept such copouts as a reasonable answer. And that's all it is, a copout.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Drake

Again, who cares what "people" think? I'm only responsible for what I think, not some monolithic mass of "people". As far as I'm concerned, "people" ten years from now can give up on God completely. Them changing their minds isn't going to matter one whit to me.

I'm not disagreeing with you, of course. I just know that ultimately I'm only responsible for what I think and believe. Worrying about what other people think just ends up being a pain in my ass.

Ultimately, I figure that religion has survived at least 10,000 years of human social evolution, including the relatively short period since the Scientific Revolution. It clearly fills some innate need in our species by functioning as a lens through which we can view, interpret and understand both the physical world and our place in it. Science isn't going to change that. Science doesn't even *try* to change that. It's asking a completely different set of questions.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are too many people on all sides of the question (not FOFC people, but the same "people" as above) who get way too pissed off about other people's opinions. If we were talking about most anything other than religion, we'd be more than happy to let dumbasses be dumbasses for whatever dumbass reason they selected. My take on religious disagreements is really that simple: If you (not you personally, but "people") want to be a dumbass, go for it.

The only job I have in the entire universe is to live my life in such a way that I'm not a dumbass in my own eyes.

To thine own self be true, in other words.

My biggest problem with this philosophy is that it allows us to set the bar as low as we want. Your only job is to make sure you don't think of yourself as a dumbass? How difficult is that, and are we not more inclined to lower our standards in order for us not to feel like a dumbass?

You don't need religion in order to lead a virtuous life, but I believe you almost certainly need something more than just your own internal moral compass.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You don't need religion in order to lead a virtuous life, but I believe you almost certainly need something more than just your own internal moral compass.

Why?

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Bearing with you, yes eternity is more important than the means of death.

But you can't just skip over the why question.

Why would a God who is loving, caring, good, and omnipotent allow good people to get cancer? Why would such a God allow toddlers to get cancer? Why would such a God allow infants to get cancer? If these people are good and are going to be allowed into Heaven for eternity, then what purpose does allowing them to suffer like that serve?

And sorry, but "we can't understand God who is so great" doesn't work. If God controls everything, then he gave me this brain that refuses to accept such copouts as a reasonable answer. And that's all it is, a copout.

I don't know. God never promised a 24-hour party for believers. It would nice if it were that easy, but it's not.

God gave you the ability to make a choice, and you've made it. Nothing in the world I could say or do to make you think otherwise.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I don't know. God never promised a 24-hour party for believers. It would nice if it were that easy, but it's not.

Is there any proof that God ever promised anything? Since it is a matter of 'faith' in 'believing' in God's existence anyway, it seems unlikely that a promise of anything really exists either. It would also be a matter of 'faith' as to whether some promise was given, and apparently can be subject to personal interpretation.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Why?

Because we have an amazing ability to deny that we're engaging in self-destructive (or simply destructive) behavior.

Religious texts (and more importantly religious beliefs) can help us become more self-aware of our behavior. But in the absence of religious beliefs, I think philosophy becomes that much more important.

To that end, I wish atheists really would get together on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning to talk about philosophical matters. Sociologically speaking, I think one of the most beneficial things about being religious is being a member of a community. Atheists, by and large, are always going to be missing out on a communal celebration of shared beliefs, values, and spiritual growth... and no man is an island.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Is there any proof that God ever promised anything? Since it is a matter of 'faith' in 'believing' in God's existence anyway, it seems unlikely that a promise of anything really exists either. It would also be a matter of 'faith' as to whether some promise was given, and apparently can be subject to personal interpretation.

According to the Bible the ticket to heaven is faith in Jesus as your savior. I guess that counts as a promise (?).

[path12]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

To that end, I wish atheists really would get together on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning to talk about philosophical matters. Sociologically speaking, I think one of the most beneficial things about being religious is being a member of a community. Atheists, by and large, are always going to be missing out on a communal celebration of shared beliefs, values, and spiritual growth... and no man is an island.

Just based on my own experience that is what any circle of friends provides in it's own way. Oft times most any kind of socializing will include at least some serious discussions of beliefs, values and the like.

When I went to church growing up, we never really had any contact with others in the congregation outside of Mass.

But YMMV.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

To that end, I wish atheists really would get together on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning to talk about philosophical matters. Sociologically speaking, I think one of the most beneficial things about being religious is being a member of a community. Atheists, by and large, are always going to be missing out on a communal celebration of shared beliefs, values, and spiritual growth... and no man is an island.

I agree that atheists do need to get together, but, not for the reasons you mention. We need to get together to stop religion from trying to be force fed to the citizens via legislation and in our public schools.

It seems to me, your statement of 'being a member of a community', you feel that it only exists if you are religious. I could be wrong, but that's what I got from your statement.

If I saw a person on the street that needed help, I would help them, not because I'm an atheist, but, because that's a fellow human being. Just because I am without faith and do not belive in a god or gods, does not mean that I am without compassion or morals or a sense of community.

[buckeyebulldog]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Why would a God who is loving, caring, good, and omnipotent allow good people to get cancer? Why would such a God allow toddlers to get cancer? Why would such a God allow infants to get cancer? If these people are good and are going to be allowed into Heaven for eternity, then what purpose does allowing them to suffer like that serve?

As mentioned by craigsca the act of accepting Jesus as our savior does not suddenly clear our lives of hardship. Suffering happens because we live in a fallen world - thanks to original sin in the Garden of Eden. Our world is flawed, people are flawed, our bodies are flawed. Being saved gives us assurance that we will be in a perfected state for eternity. But for our time on Earth, we know things won't always be good. We also know that by accepting Christ we will open ourselves up to persecution from non-believers.

A key component of the Christian worldview is that suffering, hardship, personal struggles, etc, have meaning. Out of suffering can come positive things - sometimes the benefits are for that person, other times the struggle benefits others. People of strong Christian faith have the peace that comes with the understanding that most events are not random - there's some purpose to it all. We may not know in this life but we will later.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by buckeyebulldog

As mentioned by craigsca the act of accepting Jesus as our savior does not suddenly clear our lives of hardship. Suffering happens because we live in a fallen world - thanks to original sin in the Garden of Eden. Our world is flawed, people are flawed, our bodies are flawed. Being saved gives us assurance that we will be in a perfected state for eternity. But for our time on Earth, we know things won't always be good. We also know that by accepting Christ we will open ourselves up to persecution from non-believers.

A key component of the Christian worldview is that suffering, hardship, personal struggles, etc, have meaning. Out of suffering can come positive things - sometimes the benefits are for that person, other times the struggle benefits others. People of strong Christian faith have the peace that comes with the understanding that most events are not random - there's some purpose to it all. We may not know in this life but we will later.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

God gave you the ability to make a choice, and you've made it.

Really? God gave me the ability to choose?

Well, if your God construct is omniscient, then your sentence makes no sense in my reality. Because if God is omniscient then he knows what I'm going to choose, so it's not really a choice.

But that's a whole 'nother thread.

More relevant to this thread, you, like any person attempting to explain the Christian God, have had to resort to "I don't know, but God is perfect." And that's fine. You've made a choice to believe in the biblical Christian God. I would recommend not bothering to attempt logical explanations because the concept is completely illogical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but it is indefensible in a logical discussion.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

To that end, I wish atheists really would get together on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning to talk about philosophical matters. Sociologically speaking, I think one of the most beneficial things about being religious is being a member of a community. Atheists, by and large, are always going to be missing out on a communal celebration of shared beliefs, values, and spiritual growth... and no man is an island.

I listen to the Atheist Experience podcast which is done almost every Sunday. While I don't quite agree with all of their beliefs, etc., it seems as if they make an attempt to do good things for society (like provide food to the poor, organize blood drives). I'm sure that they have an ulterior motive of proving that you don't need religion to do good things, so their actions are entirely altruistic. They're based in the Austin area and go to Threadgills after every show.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I agree that atheists do need to get together, but, not for the reasons you mention. We need to get together to stop religion from trying to be force fed to the citizens via legislation and in our public schools.

It seems to me, your statement of 'being a member of a community', you feel that it only exists if you are religious. I could be wrong, but that's what I got from your statement.

If I saw a person on the street that needed help, I would help them, not because I'm an atheist, but, because that's a fellow human being. Just because I am without faith and do not belive in a god or gods, does not mean that I am without compassion or morals or a sense of community.

I disagree with you partially. Religion assists in providing a set of morals, but it's doubtful that you would help a person on the street if it weren't for something else in your life. Your parents, maybe.

I see it in my kids and how they don't help each other. We've taught them otherwise, but they don't naturally lean towards it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I disagree with you partially. Religion assists in providing a set of morals, but it's doubtful that you would help a person on the street if it weren't for something else in your life. Your parents, maybe.

I see it in my kids and how they don't help each other. We've taught them otherwise, but they don't naturally lean towards it.

I understand what you're saying, but, I also see it as; you don't need religion to have morals, you need some sort of guidance. The guidance for your kids, is you and your wife. Though, I wouldn't doubt that your kids think that it IS the word of god coming from you.

Can you get good morals from a religion? Yes.
Is a religion required to get good morals? No.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Really? God gave me the ability to choose?

Well, if your God construct is omniscient, then your sentence makes no sense in my reality. Because if God is omniscient then he knows what I'm going to choose, so it's not really a choice.

But that's a whole 'nother thread.

True, but you'll never know what that choice is that's been pre-destined for you. But you're right, that's probably a whole 'nother thread.

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

More relevant to this thread, you, like any person attempting to explain the Christian God, have had to resort to "I don't know, but God is perfect." And that's fine. You've made a choice to believe in the biblical Christian God. I would recommend not bothering to attempt logical explanations because the concept is completely illogical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but it is indefensible in a logical discussion.

Correct. Is that because it's a load of hooey or is it because logic just doesn't fit when you're speaking of an all-powerful being that is difficult to comprehend from the human point of view?

[path12]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Correct. Is that because it's a load of hooey or is it because logic just doesn't fit when you're speaking of an all-powerful being that is difficult to comprehend from the human point of view?

I don't think it has to be because one man's faith is another man's hooey (as proved over and over in this thread).

More that faith and logic are extremely difficult to correlate in any circumstance.