Religion..... any point to it?

Jesus would be in North Africa/Middle East with his peoples!

 

why? I already went over that, it's simply better to realize your blessings than it is to mull over your losings. Think of it as not admitting my defeat. Athletes and Gamblers do the exact same thing, it's not really a religious notion.

Do I think God can be sadistic?? If he wants to :/ Christians aren't kept from fearing our God. I haven't really heard too many wrong notions in this entire thread. If ya'll think something- and it's intelligent thought (not like 'God should save his followers if they jump off a cliff', that's just stupid. One might survive though...)- you should probably go with it. Your smarter than you think.

I didn't say God gives out diseases, I always put 'IF' there. He can, but it's impossible to tell if he does or not. Besides, your all looking at this wrong. Christians don't see death as a judgment, it's just a step on the way to meeting your maker. Earthly Judgement doesn't matter in the greater scope, only what you get from the maker does.

Again, wrong Chi, I don't know where this idea of God causing death or not comes from, he does NOT do that way! He reigns over death (ie he was raised and can raise whoever he wants), but he does not manipulate death, Jesus (God) does save, yes, but that is not in respect to a literal death. Jesus saves from JUDGEMENT.

Look, nothing religious about it, I simply think I endured a cruelty of nature- *I* endured it!- (religious part begins here) and I thank God for seeing me through! Unlike some, I do not thank God for protection, I appreciate it if that was made available, but without actual evidence I will not pretend I experienced something I can not prove. I merely thank God that *I* developed the strength to get myself through. God does not take credit, I take 100% of it, I just give it to Him. It's like say Jesse Owens won an award, Jesse than gives me said award. Would you that say I WON that award?

Secondly WOULD I have such strength without God? Maybe. I am convinced God does not affect the physical nature, he remains in the mental realm. Proof- people who do not know Jesus are also spared from such diseases. Is God, than, a figment of my imagination? If you'd like to think that, I pity your soul, but go ahead and think that. There's NOTHING purely religious with my thought on the matter, Jesus is simply a method used to instill joy, happiness, and self confidence.

It's safe if you just go with that for now, cuz RIGHT NOW that's all he is. God will not come down in a chariot of fire (unless we're really really REALLY lucky... like .01 to the gaJILLIONTH lucky PLUS extremely lucky to live in the right point in time... never mind, forget it, that does NOT happen... for all extents and purposes) God only lives in the hearts of his vessels. If God PHYSICALLY does something to you it is because someBODY, some vessel, physicaly did something to you. God is like a parasite ok? A parasite that bestows self confidence and joy... and some say Love.... but I think that's just a by-product.

Take that phrase and ask 'now how can a parasite save someone who has died?' They can't, first of all the body is dead so there's nothing to work with. Not speaking for all Christians, but I don't believe in life after death. Near death experiences? sure, After-life? Of Coarse!! But it's DAMNED rare and CLOSE to impossible to have an actual life after death. I believe Jesus raised from the dead but even after that he wasn't much more than an apparition, a ghost.... but his body was gone and I can't explain that so it's technically a raising from the dead.

Now, I ask, why is this so hard to believe? Beyond a wandering body that could have EASILY (well not that easy lol it's a big rock) been stolen, every step can be explained. At least for now... the unexplained stuff comes AFTER you die.

If you wish not to believe that's fine, but at least give credence to the fact that one can 'find a savior' and with that added confidence build up good things like muscles or quit smoking or quit drinking etc. As we were saying before, both sides can be annoying, both sides can be wrong! Learn how to keep it simple (ignore all the spiritual stuff... beyond the fact that Jesus is a spirit NOT a parasite... but... it's easier to understand with the later definition... until you are ready for more) and you'll be fine.

Now for Phisix' actual question? what makes Jesus/ God/ The Holy Spirit different from say the Greek Gods?? No contest, those Greek Gods were messed up. Think it's the too many cooks in the kitchen stigma. At least the Christian God is only one entity.

Anyway I'm not saying you should believe. God rest your soul if you don't, but nobodie's forcing you to believe.

Who said that? I didn't say that. ATM I in fact don't care about anything but myself thank you . No seriously, go read my posts. I may be concerned for others (including the Japanese) but untill they take heed I really don't give a flying fuck.

for the sake of conversation I'll tell you why you should believe in BS that billions (or millions) of ppl believe in. Because they might be right.

Again I said I don't believe what the masses believe, I believe what I believe.

Parasite/ virus same thing. Why am I aggreeing with my 'rivals'?? I am NOT pleased with today

Now I will say this, how can a virus that simply spreads joy and self-confidence be 'wrong'? Maybe it's right and your confusing it with the bubonic plague :/

 

I have to admit that I don't really understand where this notion of "god makes bad things happen to good people" comes from. I don't believe in a creator or karma in the literal sense but if a creator did exist, I can only imagine that the world as it is today is on auto pilot. This hypothetical creator isn't pulling strings to kill children from starvation and give good, honest people disease. It's pretty twisted of anyone to look at it like that in the first place.

The problem with religion and likewise atheism is mentally unstable/unbalanced people. Sure, with religion this tends to compound over the years as the crazies get their way and have new laws/beliefs written into the religion to incite their own personal bigotry and hatred and that alone is why religion can be dangerous. Atheism can be just as dangerous under an equally sadistic ruler, but it doesn't by nature promote ignorance the way religion does. Atheism still carries the "us vs them" mentality which can lead to the same types of horrific crimes against human rights that religion does, but again, this is only possible with an unbalanced leader.

 

well said mister, well said! I particularly like the part where religion 'promotes' ignorance... cuz it does!!... I mean it doesn't really, but ya'll hate on us and call us extremists when we don't so... it's more a necessity to satiate the atheist pride. oh well, turn the other cheek

 

Don't get me wrong, there are a shit tonne of moronic atheists out there also. The difference I find is that it's the casual followers where the idiocy lies in atheism, where it's the hardcore dedicated followers that tend to be the morons with most organised religions. Casuals are undoubtedly less dangerous than the overly emotionally attached hardcore, so it seems like a better demographic for the morons to fill.

 

Yes, atheism resembles a religion so much that from a distance it's almost like one of religions. It's based on a faith that God does not exist because as we've discussed it - the God's existence cannot be proven nor disproven under any logic. Thus, "exists x. IsGod(x)" can be an axiom in a perfectly sound logic system but also "forall x. not IsGod(x)" can be an axiom, according to Goedel.

(under a definition that "God does not exist" -> atheism, "It's impossible to say whether God exists or not" -> agnosticism)

(and yes, atheism CAN be a religion without God, as is Buddhism)

In math terms, none of the sentences about God is "better" than the other one and to accept one of them is just a conscious choice (call it "faith"). Agnostics on the other hand represent the intuitionism (constructivism) - there's no the law of excluded middle, either God exists and show me the proof or God does not exist and show me the proof. If there's no proof then none of the two holds.

 

I believe in what I can see with my old eyes. Ugly people, my reflection, Space and the stars. Still no sign on this god though. Maybe it can see us but we cannot see it.

 

You see me don't you?? You see benevolent individuals who do their work in the name of Jesus Christ? Not all of them are pure poppycock (mother theresa, and so on). As I said God is not a physical existence. Your an anime fan, I'm watching Gurren Laggan currently, you just gotta believe in me that believes in you. Something like that. The Japanese believe they ARE God, Christians actually only believe in the belief itself, if that makes any sense to you :/.

Anyway that may be hard to do in Eurasia... but pretty anywhere else you can 'see' God. Sorry Torq... I'm not saying Eurasia is "Godless" lol I'm just saying it's tougher on Christians there... except maybe in the Vatican... and west of there...

 

It's not even a particularly good fantasy book. That's the worst part. It's boring, badly written, self contradictory, and not especially relevant for a modern audience.

 

I am disappointed with all the examples you give. Is it really the best shot you have?

It's even unscientific to pretend you are SURE of something where you just lack evidence!

Hundred years ago you'd be one of those "all-knowing" who were sure that there's no electricity, no telephones, no aircrafts and no spacecrafts just because they had no proofs of their existence.

And the earth is flat, remember, no one has find any proof that it is not. Man has proven over the years that there are swords and shields, there are ships and harrows but earth IS flat!

It doesn't matter that in 150 years a guy called Copernicus will be born and he will find a proof. It doesn't matter. Today, your common sense makes you believe that earth IS flat because there's just no evidence yet found.

I wonder what you will finally say when a proof of God's existence is finally found. A new Copernicus will be born and he will SOMEHOW do it.

As I've said, there's no known scientific paradigm according to which the lack of the proof is a proof that something doesn't hold. If you are then trying to create an impression that the scientific progress makes the faith less probable, then I am really interested in what particular science does not use logic at all.

Using your logic, Darwin would go our of his apartment, dig a hole in his backyard, find no bones at all and conclude that since there's no decisive proof to support evolution, it probably is a set of "fairy tales".

 

Could you please tell me, what kind of literature is NOT (or could not be judged by some readers as) boring, badly written or self-contradictory?

The Bible's been written dozen hundred years ago. It's nature is rather "to document" than "to entertain". To blame it for monotony is like to blame your history textbook that it's boring. It is.

Badly written. Hmm. As far as I know, it's been written by many different authors during hundreds of years (including old and new testament). I guess it has better and worse moments also accept the fact that it's a translation of a translation of ... No one even knows how many versions of it existed and what are the precise meanings of words used.

Self-contradictory. It probably is. One of my favorite webpages once was the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Not especially relevant for a modern audience. The problem is that modern religious and philosophical texts are usually even more difficult, so to study anything more complicated (take de Chardin for example) you need a "basic course", an introduction. Just like you don't solve polynomials until you know how to add and subtract.

The bible IS then relevant, as one of the elements of the introduction to modern philosophy, I just can't imagine a modern philosopher who hasn't read the Bible. Yes, everyone is free to reject it but to ignore it would be just like ignoring Plato or Aristotle, to ignore a huge milestone in the history of mankind.

 

WTF Gagger?? there is too Dinosaurs in the Bible, in a number of occasions. Before the flood only of coarse, (Dino's couldn't fit on the Ark... so most of them died )

woops? now I know your just jabberin' like a fool.

I will say this though, it's possible that the flood that covered the 'world' only covered the KNOWN world (Mesopotamia) at the time plus I've heard that the exact length of days at any time before the Roman calendar was put into effect MAY have been skewed SO that story about God creating everything in 6 days?? Who knows how long that really was. Besides all known (inteligent) human life was in one area of Mesopotamia. Dinos may have roamed everywhere else (though afaik, at that time there was only one continent).

I don't know everything, I'm not saying evolution and science is TOTALLY wrong (just misdirected?) but I do trust in my Bible 100%.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml <-- the first link I followed was CLEARLY a naive christian view, but I thoroughly enjoyed this link, you might too

 

Thanks for that! I didn't know the page before.

 

sure dude can't believe everything on the internet but this one seems to make no assumptions

 

Evolution is a fact. It's easily observable in bacteria. Why do you think bacteria is becoming resistant to antibiotics? Because it has evolved.

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. Dinosaurs and humans never coexisted. Dinosaurs went extinct tens of millions of years before the dawn of man.

It documents things that never happened, which makes it fiction. And if I'm reading fiction, I expect to be entertained. Noah's Ark never existed. And the Israelites were never slaves of the Egyptians, which makes the entire story of Moses bullshit. Those are just two examples.