Are you religious? Yes/No and Why

[Andrew]

So TPM, do you believe in a higher power. Jesus or whatevs? What's led you to that decision?

If not, why not?

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Good, I missed Metallix's Girl's topic completely not being here yesterday.

I'm a sceptic. I don't deny any possibility that there could be a higher being, nor do I omit an option that perhaps God doesn't exist. I just suspect every point of view mankind has about God's existence.

Some say Atheism is a religion too since they do have an opinion on God's existence, too. Also, I always feel somewhat irritated when people talk about the existence of one God versus no god at all since there are numerous religions with many gods (like Hinduism) and then there are also the Pantheistic religions like Shinto in Japan. Sure I understand the western world forgets all that with Christianity, Judaism and Islam dominating.

I was a religion freak when I was a little kid, I used to read The Bible a lot. Meaning the old 1938 translation, a new one wasn't published until 1992 here in Finland. I was able to point out many peculiar parts that my schoolmates had no idea of being there. Like phases describling raping and whoring, an immature attention-whore I was. Now I'm a mature attention-whroe, for the record. ;)

In 1996, when I was 11, I read Sinuhe The Egyptian by Mika Waltari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Egyptian). It was about this Egyptian Pharaoh Ekhnaton/Akhenaten who was ahead his time by promoting Monohesim. That didn't work well out accorrding to the book and I was so convinced that I changed from Christianity to Polytheism. I began to research ancient cultures' religions and found a new way there. I didn't even go to rippikoulu, a school where Finns usually 'study' Christianity at the age of 14 or 15. My friends found it odd, especially because I knew practically everything about it already and had memorized prayers and parts of The Bible.

Then I had this one weird phase where I started my very own different kind of religion and worshipped a girl who I had a crush on as a goddess. Next, I stubled upon Japan and Pokemon and things like that and was a distant-shintoist for some time, until I declared myself sceptic in 2003 or something.

[Magmar]

I am currently not religious. I was raised in a Pentecostal household and while I will spare the details it was like hell on earth considering we were supposed to be so godly and heavenly. Extreme Christianity excuses negative, archaic behaviors as justified by God. They teach you that any day Jesus is going to descend from the sky like this guy:
http://www.themoderndaypirates.com/pirates/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/lakitunew.jpg

And he's going to take up all the good Christians into heaven for an eternity of paradise, then everyone else gets plummeted into hell for seven years, most people die, and everyone pretty much goes to hell in a handbasket. So you have to hurry up and "witness" to as many people as possible and "save" them (and get them to come to your church and pay a tithe of 10%, padding pastor's pockets)... Otherwise they will suffer forever. You are told that even your Christian relatives who may not be protestant are going to hell, and at a young age when that is drilled into you twice a week over time, you start to feel fear of this "second coming".

[ChobiChibi]

I'm a Christian. Just not the kind that shouts about it. My faith is mine and mine alone, I see no reason why I should force it onto anyone else. I don't really like religious debates either, since I'd rather people just get along and not fight about the existence of something that's so personal to the individual.

My bf came to one of the church services the chamber choir did at Uni and said it felt like a cult... I didn't like that very much :/

Church services are like routine to me. I only really go when I'm at home, unless I've been invited to sing somewhere or the chamber choir are doing something. Very much a traditionalist too. Give me a somber hymn over happy clappy, shouty "praise the lord!" songs any day.

Random fact, my dad's an atheist. He's never stopped me going to church though, in fact he's always supported me, even came to my confirmation. Maybe because my choir as developed my music education quite a bit, and that's what I intend to do for my career, but I'd like to think it's more than just that. Ah well, he doesn't force his beliefs on me, I won't force mine on him.

[Telume]

I stopped going to church when I started middle school, I'm honestly not religious. I'm atheist, if there is something then there's something.

If you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, then that's up to you. Don't force your beliefs on me and I won't get angry at you. I just, don't see the point of religion. Aside from people needing to have faith in something.

All the bullshit you hear about religion now-a-days has kind of jaded me with regards to religion. All it's shown me is that people blindly put faith in something they can't see (and in some cases understand), so I've chosen not to follow any of it and it's served me just fine.

TLDR: I've lost faith in all religion because of the people who take it to extremes.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Magmar, your 5,666th post is approaching! Apocalypse here and now!

One of my classmates never raised his hand in Religion lessons. Except one occasion.

Teacher: Can you name some problems with the idea of monotheism in Christianity?

Mikachu Yukitatsu's classmate: Satan!

[Link]

I'm Christian. I have been going to church ever since I was 16. I am 26 now. I don't force my beliefs on others and I trust other people to do the same. That said, Jesus to me is the epitome of what it meant to walk with God. He taught powerful lessons. His resurrection is a testament to what it means to be with God.

[Bear]

I was raised Christian, Methodist more specifically. My parents made me go to Church until I was 13, then allowed me to make my own decision. Of course, being a young teen, I opted for the easy route and stopped going. I never stopped considering myself a Christian, but I was not very consistent with it. However, when I was in college, I started to be drawn back to my faith. As I had gotten older, I became more knowledgeable about faith, what it meant, and how it impacted my life. Like many people I WANTED to believe in a higher power, but I was a skeptic because I did not see enough proof for my liking. It didn't really occur to me at the time that this is PRECISELY what faith is about--believing in what you cannot see or prove. It wasn't until I was an adult that I realized everything that was going on, and what was behind it. I realized that I had gone through several experiences at various points in my life that I could not fully explain, that I had merely brushed off as coincidence. I won't go into huge detail about everything, but I'll try to remember an example for reference:

-In 2008, my girlfriend that I had been dating for a year and a half broke up with me on Valentine's Day. I was sure she was the one, since I had convinced myself she had no flaws. She was such a drastic improvement over my prior relationship that I just assumed she was perfect, and that I had landed the big one. Needless to say this breakup crushed me. I was depressed and in denial for a couple of months (Kuro Espeon, my sister, can testify to this), doing nothing but pray and pray for her to come back to me. This lasted until around May, when I let it out of my grasp and began to move on. I went on a 2 week vacation to various destinations in PA, NJ, NY, and OH to visit family and friends. One stop along the way was a weekend in NJ to hang out with, of all people, the ex that had dumped me. We had remained friends so we were on good terms, so we went to a party for her best friend's birthday. Among the attendees to this party was a girl named Christina. Christina, her friend Shiv, and I were the three oldest people there, with the majority of the crowd being undergrads under or around the age of 21. I thought she was damn cute, so I struck up a conversation with her. We had chemistry right off the bat, and before the night was over I got the chance to kiss her. We mutually decided not to take things further than that, out of respect. The night ended, we both went home to sleep, and all I had was her phone number.

The next day (Saturday) we texted back and forth. A good bit of getting to know each other and talking about how fun the previous night was. Toward the end of the day, I asked her if she'd like to meet up at the Mall and have lunch Sunday before I left town. She agreed, and we met up in Bridgewater. What was supposed to be a brief lunch date turned into a 7 hour continuous conversation as we steadily walked around the mall. We talked for so long, in fact, that I chose to postpone my drive to Rochester until the morning, and stay the night in a hotel. Toward the end of the evening, I decided I would ask her out. I was 24 years old and at a point in my life where I wasn't doing much, so I figured 'what the hell.' To my great delight she said yes, and we began a long distance relationship between herself in New Jersey and myself in Virginia. I quickly discovered that she not only fit the profile of the woman I wanted, but she fulfilled all of the needs I had only recently discovered were important to me. She had the perfect combination of affection and ability to give me space. She was beautiful in mind and body, and made me happier than I had ever been. It was at this point that I finally realized how imperfect my ex was, and how wrong she was for me as a companion.

Sorry for the extraordinary length of that story, but this situation was one that showed me more than just chance at work. With all the praying I had done to bring my ex back to me, somebody was listening and working on the best solution for me. But that solution, contrary to my ignorant wishes, was to bring a new and even better woman into my life, a woman who I am marrying in less than 6 months. At that point, I finally realized that God was looking out for my well being after all, and sometimes his greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

Now please remember, this is just my testimonial. I am not in any way, shape, or form telling everyone here that they must believe in God now. I know some of you will probably even pick apart my story and attribute my perceived results to a different cause. This is just one of the many situations I have encountered that has convinced me God is at work in my life, and there is a plan/purpose for me.

[Blademaster]

Shame MxG's topic got closed... I had a LOT to say about it...

Anyway, according to Wikipedia, I'm a 'transcendent panentheist,' which basically means I believe two things: 1. 'God' is the entire Universe, and vice-versa, as opposed to being separate from it like the bearded dude in the Bible, and 2. 'God' doesn't really give a shit about our planet because it's essentially a single grain of sand on a galaxy-sized beach and deserves no more or less attention than any other body in the cosmos.

And even THAT isn't my exact belief; it's simply the closest to what I believe that evidently qualifies as a type of religion.

I DID used to be Catholic, and go to a Catholic grade school. This entailed going to Church every week or so in school, praying three times a day in school everyday, and wearing uniforms and following codes of conduct one might find in 1930's Germany. Once I realized that I was being brainwashed, I backed off and became home-schooled during my junior high and high school years. It took me ten YEARS to get over the fears that they instilled in me: That I was constantly under the watchful eyes of an all-seeing, angry being who could and would let me suffer forever for so much as looking at Him funny.

Thanks a lot, religion. You really made my life better.

[Heald]

God - and the idea of God - is beautiful and incredible, in a spiritual, or theological, or scientific, or emotional way. No concept or being in the history of mankind has inspired such brilliant beauty, as well as inspired humans to atrocities.

I was raised in a Christian household and I was taken by my parents to Church every Sunday until I was about 7, which was when I was old enough to join the local rugby club and train with the Junior teams. To describe any belief or faith I had in any religion I had at that point in time is pointless; I knew what I had been told and had never really given pause to what I actually believed. When I was 11, I began taking a very logical look at life and as such didn't really care too much for God or religion. All I saw was evidence of a world that worked without any higher power or hocus pocus, and I became incredibly sceptical of the existence of God, to the point of briefly becoming atheist.

I had a semi-crisis when my father tragically and unexpectedly died when I was 13. This wasn't just a crisis of faith but just a crisis of generally all aspects of my life (including heavily abusing drink and drugs and skipping school and generally being a complete douche). During this time I did begin to explore the spirituality of the situation, and at the same time I had begun studying Theology at school. I was, surprisingly, fascinated by it, not just by religion but by philosophy, ethics and the general supernatural. I didn't instantly believe every 'miracle' I read, but I didn't instantly deny what someone like Dawkins would simply dismiss as 'perfectly explainable by science'.

Perhaps the idea of God intrigues me more than the existence of a God itself. One thing I have come to terms with is that I am too logical to be a traditional Christian, as I would constantly question my faith, but at the same time I feel if I turned my back on religion altogether, I would be missing a large part of the story. I feel that any God or higher being is so stupendously enigmatic that to seek understanding of Him would be a waste of a life. Whatever He is, and if He exists at all, is not really the point, in my opinion. If you find an idea of God that you are happy to believe in, then by all means do.

Am I a Christian, an Agnostic, or an Atheist? Or just a Theist? The thing is I hate labels. I'm none of these things. Christianity, and in fact all Organised Religion, has lost its way. I'd like the world to become secure enough about such things so that not only would all the religious learn to tolerate and accept the beliefs, or lack of, of others, but also that those who do choose to be religious aren't mocked, ridiculed, or insulted by a bunch of insecure morons, like those who in Metallix's Girl's thread. Seriously, I felt nothing but pity for nearly everyone who posted in that thread (I'm not including those who actually conducted themselves like human beings, just those who wanted to pick on someone because of a harmless belief she holds). Metallix's Girl has an incredibly beautiful belief, not one I personally agree with in whole but can at least respect, and all you people wanted to do was be assholes on the internet.

[Bear]

Here's something for people to think about and discuss:

Many people dismiss Christ's resurrection as a hoax, and that the 500 people who were eye witnesses to it were paid off/otherwise convinced to perpetrate it. By 'eye witness', I mean they saw him, alive and well, after he had been crucified and entombed. These 500 people were heavily persecuted, ruthlessly tortured, and ultimately killed by the government of the day for attesting to this event, whereas they were offered immediate freedom if they simply denied it. To say Christ's resurrection is a hoax is to say that 500 people were convinced to greatly suffer and die protecting a lie rather than tell the truth and live happily ever after. Now, call me crazy, but who in their right mind would do that? Even getting a handful of people to do something like that would be a monumental feat, but 500? The gentlemen involved in Watergate could not even keep up their lie, and they faced much gentler punishment than the 500 eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection. This is a pretty solid indicator in my eyes.

Any thoughts?

[Andrew]

Bear - Can you identify any of those 500 people? Full names and addresses? Photos? Sketch a picture for me?

[Heald]

Photos?
3/10. Try harder.

[Asilynne]

I'm religious, but I'm not specifically any denomination of Christianity because growing up my mom took me to many different denominations' churches. I saw that basically they were all sort of the same idea, just different interpretations. So rather than follow someone elses interpretation, or the literal meanings as some people do >.> I might as well form my own ideas about the events and lessons in the bible. I also don't believe in shoving my beliefs on others because that is counterproductive. No where in the bible or in any teaching does it say "disrespect other people" and by trying to force my beliefs on them, or try to convert them, or rant and rave at them that they are going to hell if they aren't just like me, that is disrespecting them.
As for the why, my parents weren't consistent with taking me and my siblings to church (thus the many different kinds of churches I went to) but because of my dad it was always a part of my life. He never pressured us to believe a certain way, he just talked about events in his life and spoke of God as part of day to day life and not in a preachy way. He talked about his feelings and what helps him, and when he told us bible stories he always told them to us in a way that we could relate to, and he always encouraged us to be our own person and decide things for ourselves.
In my teenaged years I went through some of the worst times in my life, and I prayed really hard about it. One of the defining moments of my belief comes from one of my lowest points, and how I got the exact specific sign that I asked for.
I don't always get the things that I pray for, but like James has said, sometimes it was for a reason. And I'm not concerned if anyone else believes in the same thing as me because just telling people things won't affect them as much as them experiencing it for themselves. It's not up to anyone but the individual to come to such a personal decision as what they believe about a higher power.

[Bear]

Bear - Can you identify any of those 500 people? Full names and addresses? Photos? Sketch a picture for me?


http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn159/Captain802_Second/obvious_troll.jpg

.

[Andrew]

Then unless you can back up your baseless 'facts and figures.' It really doesn't belong in this thread.

HERPA DERPA DUUURRRRR

[Asilynne]

Then unless you can back up your baseless 'facts and figures.' It really doesn't belong in this thread.

HERPA DERPA DUUURRRRR

Are you seriously asking for facts and figures on a subject that I think everyone can agree is for the most part based on faith? That's kinda the whole point of this thread, why people have FAITH in something with little to no concrete facts. So you asking for facts is out of place in this faith based thread.

Derp :P

[kurai]

.

the key is probably that you are not reading 500 first hand accounts but instead a number that paul wrote down decades later in another part of the world not having been there himself. this also requires the literal use of "500" and "seen" which is probably a bold step when considering the motivations of the author.

i don't believe in anything religiously and am somewhat sad that i can never share the kind of faith-based community that comes about from it, but also feel that it would be dishonest to deceive myself to allow for participation in such things. i sort of feel bad about discussing my own contrary views as i have seen the value it holds for others, and do not want to dissuade them.

existentially i suppose i believe in a deterministic universe which i take to sort of imply a first motion/pre-universe state, but this is beyond description and comprehension (and inaccessible, thus lacking any purpose in worship/religion). when combined with a social constructionist approach, any sort of religious feeling of mine would probably align to upanishadic/advaita vedanta concepts of reality (tat tvam asi), but i do not see the point in artifice beyond recognition of the state at present, so i can not get behind any related modern practices.

as for why i believe this, i suppose i was raised in a manner that supported both empiricist science and periodic numinous feeling, but these are contradictory. the latter only remains in the sense that i still conceive of forces beyond the calculably apparent (but not in a way that requires divinity, instead merely that which is beyond my capacity).

[Jeff]

Born and raised a Catholic. As a teenager, I didn't really understand the point of it all, but as I've gotten older I've grown to understand it more. Like most faithful people I had a defining moment in my life that helped me find my faith. As many of you may know, a couple years ago, the night before Thanksgiving, my grandfather suffered a sudden near-fatal heart attack, and had to undergo emergency surgery that he only had a 25% chance of surviving. Thinking about how he wouldn't get to see his 75th birthday, his 50th anniversary, and my sister's wedding, all that were happening the next year, I prayed for him to get better, our whole family prayed for him. Not only did he make it through the night, but he's still doing fine today.

Of course that proves nothing, but it does help me believe. Yes, there's a difference. Belief is an opinion, proven things are facts. The one thing that is certain about God's existence is that it can't be proven or disproven, so it can only be seen as a question of belief. Because of that, I don't try and push my opinion on anyone, and don't let others push their opinion on me.

[Metallixs Girl]

I guess I don't really need to answer yes or no, hehe, but I'd like to tell you guys some things about my belief in God and Jesus.

First of all, I wasn't born into a denomination, but I was raised as a Baptist from birth. What I mean by that is I believe no one is born into a denomination, they are born as themselves. God created us in the womb and knows and loves all of us, whom He made. But denomination is an invention of man, and salvation is not dependant on a denomination but on an individual's choice whether or not to believe in Christ's sacrifice as the Son of God.

I'd just like to say, that I believe if Christ had to die for us to be able to live, then sin must be very very serious. Whether or not you believe the Bible, the sins in it are in fact natural to us, as it says, and that is the truth, which is why people do get upset at the mention of the Gospel. Since we are undoubtably living in what the Bible calls sin, and we just can't stop doing it whether we want to or not, I don't think we can really grasp what life would be without it, and it's beyond our understanding why someone needs to die over it. I trust God in this, that he knows what's right.

I believe in American culture, politics can be kind of a trap if we're not wise. It causes hate, and it complicates life for a Christian who just wants to share the Gospel, at least on the Internet. But America's laws allow everyone to vote their consciences, and we all do. But not every conservative is a Christian and there are some Christian democrats and independants, I assume. Again, it's an individual choice everyone can make. I've fallen into this trap so this is also a reminder to myself.

4th, Please, I ask non-Christians to please remember that Christians are human and they are not perfect, and misunderstandings happen, and if a Christian is in fact being hateful to you, don't worry about it and please don't be upset at Jesus for it, because I believe they would be convicted of it at some point. We are all still walking and growing and learning. Each of our relationships to God are individual ones.

As for me, I think all that is needed is for a Christian to tell someone the Gospel once, and let them make the choice between God and them and answer any questions they might have. I realized that I had been here as long as I have and while you knew I was a Christian, I had never shared the Gospel with y'all. So I decided to while I was happy and wanted to please God. I thought just writing the plain simple Gospel would be best. May I ask what is considered pushing it on people? I thought that was following someone around bugging them to death, or spamming it on a thread, or condemning them.

I do fully believe the Bible is from God. I can see Jesus thoughout the old Testement. The KJV I read was written by many many different people, and translated by many more. But to me, it reads like it was written by one person, which is amazing to me. It flows so natuarally together, and it all points to Christ. I have many logic-based reasons for believing it. A few off the top of my head are the Genesis says species reproduce after their own kind, which is true. It says that blood is life, which is true because without blood, a limb or whatever will die. Also it says God used wind to part the red sea, which I read was proven true by scientists. Also they keep finding different artifacts and stuff that confirm the Bible. I don't know what the Big Bang is if there was one, but for all I know, the Big Bang could have been God saying "Let there be light". I'm not concerned about it because I believe if we find that out, the Biblical account will still be true. We have the saying "The winner gets to write the history book", well, since Jesus won victory at the Cross, the Bible is God's history book. :)

About sins again, I believe the sins all harm an indevidual in some way, either them or their relationship to God. I don't fully understand it of course, but I do have theories on why sins are bad for us, and that God's laws for the Israelites did make sense. It's been a long time since I read Leviticus, and there are things I don't understand, but I trust God with it.

I believe the Holy Spirit does come to the heart of a believer and changes them from within, because He did it to me. He is my comforter and teacher, and Jesus is my friend, and savior, and my rock. Jesus and the angels always would say Don't worry and fear not.

Blade, and the other ASBers, why I left and came back was not about TPM, it was actually about me finding out that I shouldn't serve gods in MMORPGs, because God said it was time for me to give it up, because I was wasting time and he had better stuff for me than that, and even if they were pretend, all other gods are pretend and I shouldn't be doing quests for churches like in DDO. Unfortunately all those MMOs have some form of church or other gods, so I stopped dead. A few days later He wiped away my urge to play (they are really addicting after all) and I was able to come back to TPM guilt free because I had obeyed. This doesn't mean MMOs are evil and everyone should quit, it's just a weakness of mine that I had to confront. I've heard of some Christians who play MMOs and spread the Gospel, but that's not my calling. Just wanted to clarify that while I had the chance here. ^^

I guess that's all I have to say, except, I believe Christ will come back soon, and I do believe in the rapture, and 1000 year reign and Great White Throne and stuff.

I'm glad you made this topic, Andrew. :)

I forgot to mention, I've had a lot of things happen to me, including my dad passing away very fast of Cancer last september. I know he's waiting in heaven, and Jesus has walked with me and held me up every step of the way.

[Andrew]

Are you seriously asking for facts and figures on a subject that I think everyone can agree is for the most part based on faith? That's kinda the whole point of this thread, why people have FAITH in something with little to no concrete facts. So you asking for facts is out of place in this faith based thread.
Derp :P

No. To compare Watergate (Of which there is a concrete account) to the persecution of 500 people who have been mentioned in a document (The Bible) which has undergone countless translations throughout the ages, been edited by many different people for their own purposes makes me sceptical that everything written in the bible is true. Some people have said that the Vatican has the oldest records of the Bible, but has edited it and released their version to the masses in order to serve their own needs.

So to say there was definitely 500 people who witnessed Jesus rising from the dead... unless you have actual proof that isn't based simply off of a story in the Bible, I find it hard to believe.

TL -DR The Bible is a compromised document so Bear's 'truth' which he has taken from it is about as reliable as someone suffering from dementia.


This thread was for you to discuss why you're religious or why not. Not to post something to prove "That's totes why god exists" Or "It's in the Bible so it MUST be true"

Heald - That was a joke that obviously went right past you. Photos in biblical times lol.

As for my own personal persuasion. I don't believe in God. I went to a very religious Catholic Primary School. Church twice a week in one of the oldest churches in the country. An hour of religion every morning. Prayers 5 times a day.

I didn't really understand why we were praying to God when I was a little kid. I came to my own conclusion that he was about as real as Santa, but being in a massive church filled with a thousand people really makes you keep those opinions to yourself. I was convinced that if Jesus or God really existed, there'd be an actual proxy for this holy being on Earth. I thought, "1990 years since he's been here... and there's no proof he's been here since then... all those people devoting their lives for so long with not even a sign... that's pretty silly."

But I think thinks really came to head when in Year 2 and we were learning about Noah's Ark. I asked the question about dinosaurs and got in a bit of an argument with the Nun. I asked why there wasn't any details of them in the bible or being created during those 7 days. She said they never existed. However, I had books all about dinosaurs, dinosaur toys, encyclopaedias to back me up. I'd even been to the museum a few times and always been in awe of these massive creatures and the skeletons that remained. Plus, the previous year, the teacher had done a unit on dinosaurs.

We back-and-forwarded. But eventually got told to shut up and for everyone to ignore that dinosaurs were there. We had a small meeting where I had to agree to keep a lid on this dinosaurs nonsense with the priest and the nun. I really should've told my mother. But, being 7, you can easily be told what to do. I assumed that after this meeting I was now 'In the know" about Jesus/God/Holy Spirit not existing, like Santa.

So for years I simply paid lip service, but I honestly never believed it. I think it's sad, but when you're dead, you're dead. If there truly is an afterlife, Jesus forgives all those who ask to be forgiven, right? I can totes repent then. Also, I never really understood the concept of three beings sharing a conciousness yet being the same. I just couldn't wrap my head around God (Bearded dude in robes) Jesus (Crucifixed dude) and the Holy Spirit (.. No fucking idea) being the same actual being.

But until someone from heaven descends to earth and starts some miracles up. I'm not drinking the punch. I'm not devoting my life to some being who may/may not have wandered the earth THOUSANDS of years ago> And I'm certainly not going to live by the bible which is a compromised document and has been edited by many unscrupulous people throughout the ages. When you study historical events, you can see that religion was simply used to control the masses. Whether to rally them to war, to rally behind an heir, or to invade other people and murder them. Religion has been the cause of so many murdered people throughout the ages.

I'm kind of rambling now.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

I can live with religion, but the brainwashing aspect (and fanatism) just makes me shiver and puke at times; which is why I don't really like talking about it.

Half the world is in some way blinded by faith - no offense - especially since there are plently of people (religious or not) who aren't that intelligent and fall for religious traps (i'm not saying religion is a trap, i'm just saying some people misuse religion).

After a while religion doesn't differ that much from a cult, especially in America. I mean, I can live with religion, religious people or even the idea of being religious myself (since I am a christian actually), but I can get my head around people who deny Darwin, evolutiontheory and state that God made everything in seven days? That the world is only 5000 year old? That dinosaurs and humans lived together and that a fucking flood took down the dinosaurs? Seriously, that's just shallow IMO.

[Magmar]

I wonder how much of the Bible is a collection of old fables, like a book of Aesop, or Grimm, that has simply been expanded upon by others. There were dozens of cultures in the Middle East in those years with their own sets of beliefs. The God of the culture that conquered was the one that stuck around. I have a hard time believing Earth is only 6,000 years old when we have so many fossils and records from earlier that survived the test of time through being buried deep within the earth. Maybe humans are aliens and we only arrived relatively recently. Maybe we are the aliens that are spoken about in hieroglyphics, that descended from the sky to populate and take over the Earth. I mean there has to be a reason that people are so different from other animals, right? We have the gifts of language and conscience.

I believe that we should harm no others and then we are not sinning. I don't think partying is a sin, or listening to punk rock, getting tattoos, or sexual diversity. That's just silly. Why is everything that's fun supposedly evil? People should just be able to do their own wild things without a guilt trip. Rather than every time I take a shot or smoke a bowl have my mind flooded with "OMG that's so wrong." It's not wrong in moderation.

In short I believe people are higher beings than animals but I don't understand why or how. I'm not sure where my conscious thought process falls on a cosmic scale, whether I'm just a whisper in a hurricane, or whether I'm living in a special era. I guess we'll see if the world starts to fall apart... But I can't take every natural phenomena--hurricane, nor'easter, earthquake--to be a sign of the end of the world when they have been happening for 4.5 billion years without completely destroying earth's propensity to support life.

[Bear]

No. To compare Watergate (Of which there is a concrete account) to the persecution of 500 people who have been mentioned in a document (The Bible) which has undergone countless translations throughout the ages, been edited by many different people for their own purposes makes me sceptical that everything written in the bible is true. Some people have said that the Vatican has the oldest records of the Bible, but has edited it and released their version to the masses in order to serve their own needs.

So to say there was definitely 500 people who witnessed Jesus rising from the dead... unless you have actual proof that isn't based simply off of a story in the Bible, I find it hard to believe.

TL -DR The Bible is a compromised document so Bear's 'truth' which he has taken from it is about as reliable as someone suffering from dementia.


I understand your point, but if you're going to discount the Bible because it's been through translations, you'll have to entertain the same possibility for any historical document from another culture. Do you really want to start down a path that will obligate you to question every historical document that has ever been translated to another language? I am perfectly aware that, when a document is rewritten or translated, the translator has the power to make alterations based on his own opinions. It's not that easy though, because a work as widely popular as the Bible cannot be drastically changed without someone noticing. If the Bible had varied too much from when it was originally written, it would have been noticed. That being said, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the Bible is fairly accurate as to its original version.

Let us also remember that Paul was not always Christian. Paul began as Saul, a Pharisee who participated in the persecution of Jesus' followers. He converted to Christianity after he (and his followers) witnessed the risen Christ. Now, why would a person who was so intensely anti-Christian and anti-Jesus suddenly convert voluntarily after so much activity to the complete contrary? It's just not a likely scenario unless he had seen something to definitively convince him of the wrong in his actions. I don't know about y'all, but if Jesus appeared to me after I'd seen him die and asked me why I was persecuting him, I would probably make a real quick 180 in my beliefs.

[Ayeun]

I find it funny that Christians preach about God's love for all, but then say that Homosexuals (and lesbians) are an abomination in God's eyes. How can we be his beloved children, and abominations at the same time...

And how about if God loves ALL his children (and the church says that we are ALL his children), then how come when his 'rapture' comes, that only 6600 are going to heaven, and the rest are going to hell?

Some times, I want to walk up to those people at the pro-life centers and 'thank' them. I was going to be an abortion baby, but because MY mum listened and they told her that God will love me no matter what, that they saved me... Just so I can turn out to be the 'Abomination' that they call me now... Guess that God DOESN'T love us all...

Fin~

[Heald]

I find it funny that Christians preach about God's love for all, but then say that Homosexuals (and lesbians) are an abomination in God's eyes. How can we be his beloved children, and abominations at the same time...

And how about if God loves ALL his children (and the church says that we are ALL his children), then how come when his 'rapture' comes, that only 6600 are going to heaven, and the rest are going to hell?

Some times, I want to walk up to those people at the pro-life centers and 'thank' them. I was going to be an abortion baby, but because MY mum listened and they told her that God will love me no matter what, that they saved me... Just so I can turn out to be the 'Abomination' that they call me now... Guess that God DOESN'T love us all...

Fin~
Yeah, that's only Fundamentalists, don't lump all Christians in together.

That's like saying all lesbians are fat ugly morons because Rosie O'Donnell is a lesbian and a fat ugly moron.

[Katie]

I believe early humans had no idea how to explain, well, anything, so they made up stories with characters who had cool powers and said "they did it!" If it's okay to assume that's how Zeus, Ra, and all those funny gods and goddesses came into human societies then why not also the Christian god? Then the stories got out of hand, and the people writing them really wanted their story to be believed above all other stories so they added the damning clause of "WELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE MY STORY YOU'LL GO TO A BAD PLACE BUT IF YOU DO YOU'LL GO TO A GOOD PLACE" and it scared everyone into believing it. A few thousand years later and the message has changed to better fit modern society "HE LOVES YOU JUST IGNORE THE REST OF THE BOOK IT IS OUT OF DATE =D"

Also I have absolutely no reason to believe even in a general deity who guides scientific principles into being like the big bang or evolution, for the same reason I have no reason to believe there's an invisible undetectable tree growing out of my head. Atheist now and forever. :)

edit:

It's not that easy though, because a work as widely popular as the Bible cannot be drastically changed without someone noticing. If the Bible had varied too much from when it was originally written, it would have been noticed.
How many people back then were both bilingual and literate enough to notice? If only a handful, wouldn't human nature lead the translators to tweak things to better serve the culture that they're translating for, to better convince them to believe it? Even if all motives are completely innocent, playing around in babelfish only knowing two of the languages is proof enough that things get garbled unless the very beginning and very ending language is fluently understood by the translator.

I feel like I have to clarify. I do not hate religion or religious people. The contributions to the arts are absolutely monumental, and the sense of community and charity are wonderful. What I hate is simplistic views in modern society where we are all educated enough to question things and follow our own logic. If you can justify to yourself that the stories are all metaphor or whatever, that's fine. If you admit you're not real sure, but you have life experiences that have convinced you, fine. If you insist the earth is 6000 years old because that's what a book tells you (and you only believe the book because mom told you and parents are always right) then you are stubborn and your beliefs are (dare I say?) stupid.

[Metallixs Girl]

I find it funny that Christians preach about God's love for all, but then say that Homosexuals (and lesbians) are an abomination in God's eyes. How can we be his beloved children, and abominations at the same time...

And how about if God loves ALL his children (and the church says that we are ALL his children), then how come when his 'rapture' comes, that only 6600 are going to heaven, and the rest are going to hell?

Some times, I want to walk up to those people at the pro-life centers and 'thank' them. I was going to be an abortion baby, but because MY mum listened and they told her that God will love me no matter what, that they saved me... Just so I can turn out to be the 'Abomination' that they call me now... Guess that God DOESN'T love us all...

Fin~

I can try to answer this. Actually, being gay is not an unforgivable sin, and it was forgiven on the cross just like all the others were. Gays won't go to h... for being gay, but just like everyone else, if you go there, you'd go for hearing the gospel and rejecting it. But just like everything else, men have twisted something to suit their own selves. I think the people of Westboro are wicked, and not of God. But it's the Bible that's led me to this conclusion. If we know the things of God, we'll be able to recognize the things that are not of God and be able to tell the difference.

I have a theory of why being gay is an abomination. Not the person, but the sin itself, and things it leads to. First of all, I'd like to say, that I do not know whether someone is born that way or if it's a choice, though I know we have sin nature (meaning it's natual for us to sin) so it's very possible they are born that way. But God hates Pride, and pride is the opposite of humility. Pride causes rebellion, instead of love. Pride is about I. I'm better, do things My way, etc. Pride is what makes people want to control each other. And I don't know why, but being gay and pride seem like they go hand in hand. They are actually bold with it, as well. It is bold open rebellion to our society. No other people demand respect for something considered sin in the Bible like they do, that I can think of. And I don't mean that all gay people are prideful either, it's just that it can lead to pride, and it apparently has.

I think the lifestyle consumes them, and gay becomes their identity, so they are really trying to protect their identity as a gay person rather than trying to find their identity in Christ, since it conflicts with their gay identity. That might be why it was an abomination, because of how it harms their relationship with God. They'd have to accept it is sin and they might not want to give it up. But I believe there are born-again gay people, and how far along in their walk they are is between them and God. That's just my thoughts on the matter though.

As for the rapture, it never says how many will be raptured, it does not give a number. Everyone who's been born again and are believers in Christ will be raptured. Why did you think it would be 6600?

[Katie]

There is a difference between pride-bragging and pride-self accomplishment. "Gay pride" is extremely new, and back in biblical times I'm pretty sure gay people just wanted to be left alone loving their gay lovers.

[Heald]

The problem with Hell is the concept was largely shoehorned into the Bible and early Christian doctrine by the early Church as a way of reconciling it with religions of the time that did practice a form of an afterlife that was a punishment (Hades, Tartarus etc.) but in no way does it actually have any real theological grounding. It was (and still is, the post above brilliantly demonstrates my point) also used as a device to scare people into following Christianity. I don't believe Hell actually exists even if God actually does.

I honestly think modern-day Christians are silly for believing in Hell like it is some kind of boogie-man, and as a theological concept the whole thing is entirely ridiculous. A Ned Flanders devil is more likely than whatever it is some people think will happen to those who sin after they die.

[Metallixs Girl]

There is a difference between pride-bragging and pride-self accomplishment. "Gay pride" is extremely new, and back in biblical times I'm pretty sure gay people just wanted to be left alone loving their gay lovers.

If that is true, then in Sodom, why were they all outside Lot's door banging on it and threatening him if he didn't send out his angel guests that they may "know" them? They were trying to force their will on the new visitors in town. It says both young and old from all over the city were at Lot's door.

Yes, there is a difference. But Lucifer said "I will be like the Most High meaning he wasn't happy being an angel and wanted to be God. Which of those two Prides was he guilty of? We can be happy for ourselves or someone we know, but that's not the same thing as arrogant pride.

[Lady Vulpix]

I believe there is a higher power but that this higher power (God or any other name you want to use) is not a human being or even an individual in the way that we are. And I believe there is something after death although probably not Heaven and almost certainly not Hell which, as Heald says, was created to scare people into becoming Christian.

The reasons for my beliefs are that the universe is too complex to have been formed by mere chance, and even to have been created within itself; and that something like a soul (consciousness, being or whatever you prefer to call it) can't suddenly turn into nothing when someone dies. Sure, I'm accepting as a rule that nothing turns into nothing, but you have to take something as a fact if you don't want to be completely skeptical (and believing in absolutely nothing doesn't strike me as a nice way to live) so I accept the things that feel right to me.

So, am I religious? Maybe. I'm Jewish, but that's more about the heritage and willingness to follow some traditions than the religion itself. I'm not an atheist and not quite an agnostic either, so I guess we can say I'm somewhat religious. But I'm not willing to do or believe something just because I'm told that I should. I pass everything I see, read, hear or come up with through the filters of my mind and heart, and then choose the ones that I will follow.

-----

As for the discussion about homosexuality, I do not believe it has anything to do with arrogant pride. People may or may not be arrogantly proud regardless of what gender they're attracted to.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

If that is true, then in Sodom, why were they all outside Lot's door banging on it and threatening him if he didn't send out his angel guests that they may "know" them?

The case of Sodom is interesting indeed, but according to my religion teacher, their sin wasn't exactly homosexuality. During ancient times, raping people was used as a punishment, so that's what Lot was so afraid of. Maybe that sorta took this off topic, but I just wanted to point that out.

[Asilynne]

After a while religion doesn't differ that much from a cult, especially in America. I mean, I can live with religion, religious people or even the idea of being religious myself (since I am a christian actually), but I can get my head around people who deny Darwin, evolutiontheory and state that God made everything in seven days? That the world is only 5000 year old? That dinosaurs and humans lived together and that a fucking flood took down the dinosaurs? Seriously, that's just shallow IMO.

Did I miss something at one of my 10 or so different kinds of Christian church I went to growing up? I've never heard of some of the weird shit you just said lol dinosaurs being killed by the flood? 5000 year old earth? Whatever those came from, it's not a typical Christian belief, at least not that I've seen. And the people that don't believe in evolution or that take the seven days thing literally do just that--- take the bible to the extreme literal sense.
Imagine for a moment you are an omnipotent being, you are immortal, how would you describe hundreds of thousands or even billions of years to a primitive people whose lifespan is a tiny fraction of that? If you were immortal, and you've been around for God knows how long ( hrhr) wouldn't a billion or so years seem like a drop in the bucket, or, a day? Compared to the life you've lived in total, it just might. But primitive man can't wrap their head around the concept of a BILLION years, it's like when you teach children, you need to teach them in a way they can grasp. In a way that is also the reason we call God a 'he', a being that far above us probably doesn't need the concept of gender, but humans can't understand that because most of the things we see in our world has two genders, and since males were typically dominant in cultures of the time, of course He would call Himself male. The people that try to say "no Gods a woman!!!" miss this point completely. God is probably neither He nor She, because a being like God is above those distinctions.

I'm not sure where I heard it from, bht I remember the concept of God being described on this way: we are three dimensional beings in a four dimensional world. What if we were to take a living creature that was living in two dimensions and brought them to our world, there would be new concepts, new measurements they wouldn't be able to grasp, being so much more advanced then anything they were used to. The things we could do would seem magical to them, seem impossible, though they are simple to us. I believe the same is true with God. He can do things we can't understand because He is on a higher plane than we are, and while it's far more complicated than bringing a drawing to life, the basic concept is the same.

And I agree with Heald about the Christian fundamentalists. In this day and age we are taught not to judge a whole group of people based on the actions of a few, like racism, sexism, homophobes, and so on. But when it comes to Christianity, and in America political parties, people feel free to lump them all together and say they're all the same, they're all crazy brainwashed disrespectful [insert label here]. one of the main teachings of Christianity is don't judge lest ye be judged, and treat others as you would want to be treated, and while these are Christian teachings I think everyone can benefit from following them. No one is perfect, everyone has flaws, so before you go condemning someone for what you perceive as a flaw you remember that you are just as human as everyone else.

[Magmar]

The case of Sodom sounds like a fairy tale to me, sorry. Two angels walk into a city and the whole town wants to bone them, so God burns it down and turns a guy's wife into salt for looking back on the city? Besides, right after the city burned, Lot and his daughters totally boned in a cave, it's right there in the Bible. I guess incest is not as bad as gay sex ;[

[Metallixs Girl]

I didn't mean to imply that only gay people are prideful, because that's certainly not true.

Lot asked them to come to his house rather than stay in the street at night. The account says nothing about punishment, so I think that's just an idea someone had, but it's not really backed up in the Bible. We know that Sodom had great sin, and men were harassing Lot about "knowing" his guests, and it had something to do with s.. because Lot offered his daughters up rather than harm the people who had come under his roof.

[Bear]

I think one thing I have trouble grasping with science is the idea that, through evolution alone, humans were able to develop from primates who, in their normal form, do not even come close to the cognitive and technical abilities we possess. Evolution provides explanations for all manner of adaptations and changes in life forms, but none are even as close to being as significant as human development. I just find it difficult to believe that primates could evolve into humans that way.

Also, we tend to grasp science more because we are told it is "hard evidence". But really, if you think about it, wouldn't it be just as easy for a society/government to brainwash people into thinking science is real? Even with all the intuitive and logical powers we humans have, we are still subject to errors. In addition, it's reasonable to assume that most any "discovery" can be fabricated in one way or another through our advanced technology. How did we come to discover the process of carbon dating? Wouldn't a brilliant group of scientists simply be able to say "x is true because of y" and we, as less specifically educated folk, would believe it out of ignorance? Ignorance being used in its literal definition, mind you, as simply "lack of knowledge".

The points I offered previously in this thread were just to spark debate and conversation. My faith and beliefs are based on my personal life experiences, which have led me to believe that I am on the right path, and that there is a God. The simple and blunt fact is that no, there is no 100% infallible evidence to prove God does exist. There is also no 100% infallible evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Knowledge of this fact, coupled with certain events in my life and what I've learned, has made my faith what it is today.

[Lady Vulpix]

Bear, science exists (I should know, I'm doing scientific research) but that doesn't mean everything every scientist says or publishes is true. More over, the vast majority of scientists do not believe that everything other scientists say is true (I wonder if there's any who does), and those who allow themselves no doubts about their theories are not following the scientific method correctly. In order to formulate a valid theory, you have to be as aware as possible of your assumptions (which always exist) and there's always a chance of some of those assumptions being wrong.

More often than not, physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, etc. (even computer scientists, and sometimes even mathematicians) know that there is an error in their results because it's impossible for humans to perceive and measure everything correctly, and because there are usually unknown variables in play. They try their best to reduce the errors, but it's impossible to eliminate them completely. Science can be very useful in helping create new things and improve people's lives (or ruin them too, but I'd rather do the former) but any scientist who claims to have found an absolute truth is an arrogant liar.

[Metallixs Girl]

The case of Sodom sounds like a fairy tale to me, sorry. Two angels walk into a city and the whole town wants to bone them, so God burns it down and turns a guy's wife into salt for looking back on the city? Besides, right after the city burned, Lot and his daughters totally boned in a cave, it's right there in the Bible. I guess incest is not as bad as gay sex ;[

The Bible tells people's sins to show that the people God chose as His prophets and those he saved from stuff in the OT were human, just like everyone else. Yes, it does say that, because that is what they did. Just because someone in the Bible sins does not mean the Bible condones it. It lists no sins for Daniel but it does say he prayed for forgiveness so he knew that he sinned. But the Bible shows that all have sinned, including those who God spoke to. But they all believed.

[Metallixs Girl]

Bear, science exists (I should know, I'm doing scientific research) but that doesn't mean everything every scientist says or publishes is true. More over, the vast majority of scientists do not believe that everything other scientists say is true (I wonder if there's any who does), and those who allow themselves no doubts about their theories are not following the scientific method correctly. In order to formulate a valid theory, you have to be as aware as possible of your assumptions (which always exist) and there's always a chance of some of those assumptions being wrong.

More often than not, physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, etc. (even computer scientists, and sometimes even mathematicians) know that there is an error in their results because it's impossible for humans to perceive and measure everything correctly, and because there are usually unknown variables in play. They try their best to reduce the errors, but it's impossible to eliminate them completely. Science can be very useful in helping create new things and improve people's lives (or ruin them too, but I'd rather do the former) but any scientist who claims to have found an absolute truth is an arrogant liar.

I'm actually fascinated by Science because it does teach us about creation, and it confirms my faith a lot of times. But I think it can be abused. I hated Global Warming in the 90s because everyone was using it to instill fear in children. I was in the fourth grade and a teacher told my class that when we were 30, there would be no oil left on Earth. Captain Planet said you couldn't go outside in 10 years without sunscreen or you'd fry, or something like that. I think that was horrible for them to do that to us, you should never EVER put that kind of burden on little children. It seemed to be everywhere. I'm not worried about it now, but that just wasn't right.

[Andrew]

I understand your point, but if you're going to discount the Bible because it's been through translations, you'll have to entertain the same possibility for any historical document from another culture. Do you really want to start down a path that will obligate you to question every historical document that has ever been translated to another language? I am perfectly aware that, when a document is rewritten or translated, the translator has the power to make alterations based on his own opinions. It's not that easy though, because a work as widely popular as the Bible cannot be drastically changed without someone noticing. If the Bible had varied too much from when it was originally written, it would have been noticed. That being said, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the Bible is fairly accurate as to its original version.

Let us also remember that Paul was not always Christian. Paul began as Saul, a Pharisee who participated in the persecution of Jesus' followers. He converted to Christianity after he (and his followers) witnessed the risen Christ. Now, why would a person who was so intensely anti-Christian and anti-Jesus suddenly convert voluntarily after so much activity to the complete contrary? It's just not a likely scenario unless he had seen something to definitively convince him of the wrong in his actions. I don't know about y'all, but if Jesus appeared to me after I'd seen him die and asked me why I was persecuting him, I would probably make a real quick 180 in my beliefs.

But Bear, what other historical documents are so widely circulated within the general population and have as much hold over so many people? I can't think of one. The Bible is the only one. I would think that a Bible from 100 years ago is likely quite different to the ones now. Widespread literacy is a fairly new. Back in the middle ages, people manipulated the Bible's word for their own ends. The majority of people couldn't read, so it was quite easy to do. Even most of the clergy. One literate person could've altered parts of the bible and no-one would be the wiser. Only with the modern age and the invention of the printing press is there some sort of uniformity. But that document they used was already compromised long ago.

Also in regards to Paul. Paul may never have existed. There's no way to prove he was really here or that he's simply a fictional character.

Edit - Also, in regards to evolution Bear, Primates and Humans share around 97% of the same DNA. Through thousands of years of evolution, we've become the people we are today. THOUSANDS of years. Historians say that people used to be shorter 100+ years ago and that due to selection (Women being attracted to taller men etc) we're now a few cms taller on average than the average man 100+ years ago. So we're still evolving to this day.

[Metallixs Girl]

But Bear, what other historical documents are so widely circulated within the general population and have as much hold over so many people? I can't think of one. The Bible is the only one. I would think that a Bible from 100 years ago is likely quite different to the ones now. Widespread literacy is a fairly new. Back in the middle ages, people manipulated the Bible's word for their own ends. The majority of people couldn't read, so it was quite easy to do. Even most of the clergy. One literate person could've altered parts of the bible and no-one would be the wiser. Only with the modern age and the invention of the printing press is there some sort of uniformity. But that document they used was already compromised long ago.

IMHO, that's part of why the Bible is true. BECAUSE it's been altered so much and hidden and hated, but it's still here, and the message is still lighting people's hearts. People have tried to silence the message of the Gospel, and failed.

Also in regards to Paul. Paul may never have existed. There's no way to prove he was really here or that he's simply a fictional character.

Edit - Also, in regards to evolution Bear, Primates and Humans share around 97% of the same DNA. Through thousands of years of evolution, we've become the people we are today. THOUSANDS of years. Historians say that people used to be shorter 100+ years ago and that due to selection (Women being attracted to taller men etc) we're now a few cms taller on average than the average man 100+ years ago. So we're still evolving to this day.

I thought that had to do with genes? I don't know all about that, but I thought people did inherit genes. If women perferred tall men, so they had kids who were taller. Black people, as an example, used to be black (or dark), but over time they got lighter because of mixing with white people do to slavery and everything, or at least that's what a teacher said once. I don't see how that means we came from monkeys though...^^

[Ayeun]

My bad... - 6600 + 144000...

Revelations 7:4

(4)And I heard the number of those who were sealed (saved and sent to heaven). One hundred and forty-four thousand of the all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed.

Guess heaven has limited seating.

[Metallixs Girl]

My bad... - 6600 + 144000...

Revelations 7:4

(4)And I heard the number of those who were sealed (saved and sent to heaven). One hundred and forty-four thousand of the all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed.

Guess heaven has limited seating.

I've always understood the sealing of the Jews and those people in heaven were two different groups in Rev 7. It says 9After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

It says don't hurt the earth until the Jewish servents of God were sealed in their foreheads, not taken up to heaven. I can always be wrong, but that's always been my understanding. Of course, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Ayeun]

I've always understood the sealing of the Jews and those people in heaven were two different groups in Rev 7. It says 9After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

It says don't hurt the earth until the Jewish servents of God were sealed in their foreheads, not taken up to heaven. I can always be wrong, but that's always been my understanding. Of course, we'll just have to wait and see.

Well, when I went to Sunday school, the nun told us that you had to be good, or you weren't going to be one of those who were saved from the rapture...

[Heald]

Also in regards to Paul. Paul may never have existed. There's no way to prove he was really here or that he's simply a fictional character.
Yeah, shut the fuck up. You here just clearly reveal that you have no basic knowledge of Christian theology whatsoever. There is quite a lot of substantial evidence that Paul, one of the most important figures of the early Church, was, in fact, a real living human being who did and said a lot of the things that are recorded both inside and outside the Bible. The fact that he wrote what makes up most of the New Testament is pretty solid evidence there.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

Asi: I heard those things in documentaries about Creatonism.

Also, fuck the gay-hating:)

[Bear]

But Bear, what other historical documents are so widely circulated within the general population and have as much hold over so many people? I can't think of one. The Bible is the only one. I would think that a Bible from 100 years ago is likely quite different to the ones now. Widespread literacy is a fairly new. Back in the middle ages, people manipulated the Bible's word for their own ends. The majority of people couldn't read, so it was quite easy to do. Even most of the clergy. One literate person could've altered parts of the bible and no-one would be the wiser. Only with the modern age and the invention of the printing press is there some sort of uniformity. But that document they used was already compromised long ago.

Also in regards to Paul. Paul may never have existed. There's no way to prove he was really here or that he's simply a fictional character.

Edit - Also, in regards to evolution Bear, Primates and Humans share around 97% of the same DNA. Through thousands of years of evolution, we've become the people we are today. THOUSANDS of years. Historians say that people used to be shorter 100+ years ago and that due to selection (Women being attracted to taller men etc) we're now a few cms taller on average than the average man 100+ years ago. So we're still evolving to this day.

I do see your point broseph. Yes, clergy had the power to interpret the Bible to their congregations as they saw fit because they were the only ones usually who spoke Latin. But that's when READING it, not writing it. There are many very old versions of the Bible intact, so there are bases for comparison. If any huge discrepancies existed that threatened the integrity of the book, they would have been discovered by now I think.

As for evolution, I know what the THEORY is. I just find it extremely hard to believe that we could go through so much change (Primates->Humans) when most other animals have been around and evolving for just as long and haven't experienced these kinds of changes. I just don't see how the conditions could exist that would influence a species like primates to develop speech, make clothes, and eventually invent all the technology we have today. Why haven't all primates evolved this way? Just because our DNA is 97% similar (so they say) does not mean we're evolved from each other.

I like all the discussion so far, it's polite, respectful, and intelligent. Keep it up y'all!

@Andrew - Can we still make out even though we disagree on religion?

[Dryk]

For me, as a Christian, the Bible reveals truth, not necessarily facts. This is kinda hard to understand, so I think of them somewhat like the parables that Jesus taught e.g. did some guy really have two sons and one asked for his inheritance? No, but we can understand the truth of the message he is teaching. This can be seen in such things as the story of the Flood. There are numerous stories in different cultures, but the story is meant to reveal truths about God. (I don't think they could build a ship big enough to hold all the animals in the world.)
This is not to say that the Bible is all tales, for I think there is truth in there, especially the New Testament.

As for Hell, I believe that it is real, but that it is not as it is said to be. Rather, it is a place where you do not and cannot experience God at all, because experiencing him would require you to face up to your sins and that pain would be even more unbearable than not experiencing God. In a way, it is maybe a mercy that they do not have to know they failed God.

In dealing with science and faith, I think that science is fact and that science helps us describe parts of our faith like how humans came about through evolution. If there are conflicts of faith and science it is merely a misunderstanding from one side or the other.

[Metallixs Girl]

Well, when I went to Sunday school, the nun told us that you had to be good, or you weren't going to be one of those who were saved from the rapture...

The Bible teaches it's not about man's goodness. That's not what saves us. According to the Bible, we've all fallen short of the Glory of God. That's why Jesus had to die, because we needed Him, and we are sick with the disease of sin. He's already done what needed to be done, now all He asks from us that we believe that He did it. He's asking for our faith and trust. All the Old Testement prophets we know about trusted God, and so did the New Testament people. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.

[RedStarWarrior]

Anyone quoting the Bible is merely stating their interpretation.

Though, faith will lead to you presenting your interpretation as fact, so I can't really fault you for it.

[shazza]

Hello friends. :)

I will not partake in the debate that seems to be ensuing, rather I shall simply reply to the topic at hand.

As a child, I believed unquestionably there was an afterlife and a God – the wise, white bearded Father and Grand Creator from the Heavens. So, it was a Christian God (for that was the society I grew up in). I did not attend church, adopting a non-Orthodox approach. I followed the views of my mother: she would tell me there is a God that ultimately forgives, and you need not attend church as long as you have a genuine soul and lead a good life. There was no hell for the bad people, rather those that committed the bad felt the utmost remorse and guilt for what they did, for God would show them the pain they caused – I guess He would do it some form of direct empathy, making them feel the pain they caused e.g. Hitler's treatment of the Jews. I presume in hindsight she told me this so I would not fear the possibility of Hell. I also now question my mother’s own genuine beliefs, for she may have told me these to put my mind at ease as I was a child that would ask many questions. But having heard that she wanted to convert to Catholicism before she passed away (she did not), I am assuming it is a mixture of the two.

I would pray to God, with my mother making out that God considered me special to the rest. I am certain this has much to do with my innate attention seeking, narcissistic side to me. But I digress. I would also pray, I believe, to St Peter whenever I would lose any belongings; definitely a placebo as I look back, but I would find whatever I had lost rather swiftly after my prayer.

I was extremely close to death as a baby, with the doctors telling my parents there is no option but to pull the plug. My mother went to the church in hospital, pleading to God for me to survive, and she said she heard a voice from Him telling her that is not necessary, and that I will be fine. So, I am going to guess that my mother’s spiritual side had much to do with her subjective experiences. Once I survived, my mother gave me a second middle name, Gerard, after St Gerard the Catholic saint of childbirth and mothers. I now see that second name as a personal reverence to my mother’s spiritual side rather than any religious connotation.

When my mum passed away in 2001 at the age of 12, my whole world collapsed. I was mostly certain she had gone to heaven, but I had a niggling doubt this was not the case. My dad, who is a believer of ghosts and whatnot, had a few experiences soon after her death that felt he was still talking and connecting with her; this was obviously his way of coping, for to come to terms she is completely and utterly gone, as if she had never existed, is a frightening thought to remotely contemplate. It still is in a way.

As I went through my teenage years, I was apathetic about religion and God. I was vastly more sceptical about His existence, yet I was too frightened to firmly doubt any form of afterlife and religion for obvious reasons. So, I guess I was a believer by fear and no alternative explanations due to lack of knowledge about the Cosmos.

In late 2008 and early 2009, the apex of my positive marijuana experience, I began to deeply reflect over God, existence and whatnot. I would write ideas down, which at the time I thought were epiphanies (and they are), which include: how imaginative and intelligent man is for to create a plethora of different ideas about religion and the afterlife; that when we die, we become nothing and in that sense if we have no ability to project the Universe, the Universe is no more (we make the Universe); and that the Big Bang is just one of infinite oscillating, each creating its own set of laws of physics. To imagine that we cannot even imagine (a tad paradoxical) the variety and plethora of previous types of laws, species, biology, civilisations, inventions, languages, forms of art, history, colours, and just everything completely different is breathtaking. Imagining the unimaginable.

Indeed, this rings true with our current Universe, with the 400 billion stars in our Galaxy alone, and with billions of other galaxies or containing more or less the same numbers. Drake Equation here!

But my ideas weren’t so original – the oscillating Universe has been a Hindu belief (in a more religious form) for centuries – as Carl Sagan’s Cosmos showed. And it showed me so much. It taught me not to fear the idea of a lack of Christian God, rather to bask in the awe and beauty of this Universe, and how the construction of the Earth, with the billions of years of evolution, occurred. This is just as spiritual – if not more so – than any religion can bring. So, I guess this is Pantheistic: the only true God for certain is the Universe itself. And, as I mention moreso below, you are a component of this God, for you are the Universe.

“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend is as the centre of true religiousness.”
-Albert Einstein, The Merging of Spirit and Science

I then set my sights on Buddhism, and Eastern religion, which I have gained a few lessons out of it. It is not completely akin to it, but it is more so than Western religion. When we die, we will be what we were before we born. I guess this answers one main aspect to the question: no, I do not believe in any after life, or that our egos survive after we die. Our egos are a social institution, leaving us alienated from the Universe. But we are the Universe. We are all this Universe just knowing itself. And when we do die, it will go from everything to nothing; your ego will be as if it had never existed, as you merge again into the unconscious. With our lives so impermanent, this should try and teach us to live in the present moment, and take risks and make the most of what we can. I am still definitely a novice to it, still way too often falling trap to trivial worries that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. The song, Jose Gonzalez – Cycling Trivalities, sums up this quite nicely. I also recommend, when it comes to the false idea of the ego, to read ‘The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are’ by Alan Watts, which I shall now quote:

“How is it possible that a being with such sensitive jewels as the eyes, such enchanted musical instruments as the ears, and such a fabulous arabesque of nerves as the brain can experience itself as anything less than a god? And, when you consider that this incalculably subtle organism is inseparable from the still more marvelous patterns of its environment—from the minutest electrical designs to the whole company of the galaxies—how is it conceivable that this incarnation of all eternity can be bored with being?”

However, we still know so little. Science is the best tool we have, but it has only uncovered the surface of the Cosmos. I like to postulate the idea that there is some conscious being, spirit – but they care little, if at all, about our existence. Or even know of it. This is labelled as Apathetic Agnosticism, I believe? All I know is that there is mystical truths afar which both science and religion cannot explain, and that is tear provoking to reflect over at how little we know – and quite possibly we will ever know – about the Cosmos.

I believe that every religion created on this Earth – since the cavemen started worshipping animals – are the idea of man. We developed a self-consciousness and began to wonder about everything. We are an intelligent species with a passionate imagination. I also like to joke that Jesus enjoyed weed, and was like “Woah man, I can walk on water and shit!” There is a myriad of planets and stars out there, unimaginable to conceive, and is simply an egeocentral delusion to think we have some special place in the Cosmos. Yet, this is perfectly normal for it is all we are known, and just as we get so caught up in our own trivialities, so too is it bound to manifest itself as a collective subconscious and believe Earth has some special place. But it does not. This may be terrible news, for it distorts your ego, but once you learn to accept how not only small you are, but the Earth itself, things shall not be so serious, and we shall hopefully learn to enjoy the present moment a little more.

I do not wish to actively condemn those that believe in religion, for any path to happiness in life should not be argued with. Life is far too short for everyone to discounter everyone’s beliefs. My only biggest problem with manmade religion is that so too often they are prone to not live their life with the only life they have, waiting for true happiness in an afterlife that simply will not occur. Religion, however, does teach about connectivity and whatnot, and many religious people still try and make the most of the life they lead here. There is ultimately no point to argue with what makes people happy and fulfilled, and I slightly envy those that are devout – I am simply not one of them. I would want nothing more for our egos, our personality, our memories to go on forever, for that is what our ego craves (to remain an ego) – but, sadly, it will not. Having said that, I recently read a book called ‘Sum; Forty Tales from the afterlife’ by David Eagleman. A neurobiologist, in it he imaginatively writes 40 ideas about what an afterlife may contain – that is not to say he believes any of them, but to consider that anything is possible – which he dubs Possibilianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism) – is sound and majestic thinking. So, I take back the complete certainty that our egos will not survive once we pass on, but it is the most likely scenario that I believe in.

I just spoke of my fear that religious people may not live their life to the full, for they are anticipating better tomorrow (after life), but I suppose this rings true for all of us – religious and non religious. We are always working towards some future that will ultimately never happen. We feel if we work hard now, then one day we will achieve happiness. We are breeding a type of human incapable of living in the present – that is, of really living.

When people come to me with their trivial problems, I do try to remind them of the impermanence of life, but it is becoming more apparent people are almost addicted to getting caught up in bullshit, so I’ve recently decided to refrain from what is probably preaching. I still contradict myself so many times, and to type all this up is actually a good reminder of the art of happiness.

Bye!

[Asilynne]

The first part of shazza's research essay here, along with how everyone else seems to keep talking about the man in the sky with the beard etc, reminds me of something that happened at a church when I was very young. The adults were having a sermon so all the kids would go into a sort of daycare area, where this unhappy seeming woman pretty much just had us all draw what we wanted.
So my brother drew God, or what he saw as how God should look based on everything he ever heard about Him. The babysitter took one look at it and asked what it was, my brother telling her it was a picture of God. She got so mad, she told him he was wrong, that God didn't look like that at all, and that my brother should stop being so offensive and actually pay attention.
What did my brother draw that offended this old lady so much? He drew basically a nice scene with a house and trees and a big yellow sun, and a blue and pink mist/cloud area near the house. The mist was God, because God could be everywhere at once, and obviously to a four year olds mind that meant God was like the wind. Even as a five year old I didn't like that old lady's attitude in insisting that God was "an old man sitting on a cloud wearing white robes". If she's never looked in the face of God who is she to say that He isn't like the wind, or a misty form, or some concept we as humans can't understand?

I have always believed that in many things children tend to be smarter than adults, because they are less inclined to assume the universe follows all the rules all the time, they are more likely to believe in the sorts of possibilities that shazza has spoke of. To a child things are not always impossible, they just haven't been discovered yet, and I wish more adults would have that same sort of wonder, and that same desire for learning.

[Telume]

As far as adults are concerned, I think they pretty much begin to lose that wonder as soon as they hit that barrier, the teen years, because at that point you pretty much start to become a little more logical about the things around you.

And it's also the time in your life where, you're still young but, you're no longer under the "kid" definition. Even though some people still take to calling you kid simply because you're just younger than them.

[Asilynne]

What I was talking about though, is exactly that. Not everything in the world can fit within the confines of logic, even though we try to shove everything into the limits of what we think we know about the universe. Adults will even take a subject such as love and explain it away logically, that all love is is a cocktail of chemicals and hormones in the brain etc. To me that's a rather cynical way of looking at things, and I find it sad when people have to find a logical explanation for everything, since its limiting their own minds. As soon as you begin to think you know everything about how everything works, you stop growing and stop learning, and therefore become stagnant.

[Blademaster]

I know science isn't readily welcomed into religious discussion, but I have just mad a discovery that I felt was important to share:

There is a direct correlation between increased post numbers in religious threads and increased blood pressure in me.

This requires further testing, but it is a sound hypothesis as it is and should be considered by all future posters of this topic.

[Lady Vulpix]

Blade: I have a quick solution for you: stop reading these discussions. Then they won't make your blood pressure rise.

Asi: how old are you? I'm confused by your use of the word "adults". In any case, it'll be hard to hear any children try to explain love in those terms, but not all adults do either. I don't believe that feelings are just the result of chemicals in the brain, although I do believe that certain chemicals can affect people's emotions (I've seen it happen). Probably not love, though, since it's a feeling for another person (or animal, or whatever) and not just an emotional state.

[Blademaster]

Sorry Gabs, but stupidity draws me like a moth to flame. Thankfully, I'm just skimming most of this, so I haven't had too many aneurysms yet.

[Metallixs Girl]

Who has ever said science isn't welcomed into religious discussions? I have already mentioned that I like science, and have mentioned a few science facts I have found in the Bible. I remember a specific thread somewhere else (not TPM) where I have been asked to get my opinions about Global Warming out of a discussion when I was just trying to bring a different opinion. But I did leave them alone when they asked.

[Asilynne]

Look at my profile, I was born in 1984 so Im 26. What I said about love was an example, I'm trying to say that it seems like aspeople get older they tend to in some cases become more cynical and less accepting of possibilities that don't fit into logic. In this way it seems like once people develop into adults, they become a bit more close minded and limited in their thinking, and quit considering things existing outside their understanding, which I think is sad. I hope this is a bit clearer.

[Lady Vulpix]

Ah, I see. Well, as much as it may hurt some people, it's impossible to get to understand absolutely everything, so there will always be things that are beyond our understanding. If they choose to believe that there's nothing to life other than the interaction of chemicals, that's still a belief, not something they can know for certain.

It makes sense to try to explain things with the tools we have at hand, and when researching it's very common to start off with as few variables as possible because the simpler the object of study is, the easier it is to analyze it. But just because you've chosen a set of aspects to begin your analysis, it doesn't mean that nothing else exists. Things you can't measure or fully comprehend can't be easily studied, but there's no logic in denying their existence just because you can't understand them.

So if anyone claims that logic says God/the afterlife/souls/anything doesn't exist, you can tell them that logic says nothing about that, and that it's just a belief like any other.

[Bear]

Eh, aside from everything else, I just feel that we are too complex to be destined for such a short time period. With all the feelings, emotions, and other things that we experience, I find it impossible to believe that, when we die, everything just "stops". That doesn't specifically describe just my religion, but it's part of the reason I believe in it.

[Asilynne]

Ah, I see. Well, as much as it may hurt some people, it's impossible to get to understand absolutely everything, so there will always be things that are beyond our understanding. If they choose to believe that there's nothing to life other than the interaction of chemicals, that's still a belief, not something they can know for certain.

It makes sense to try to explain things with the tools we have at hand, and when researching it's very common to start off with as few variables as possible because the simpler the object of study is, the easier it is to analyze it. But just because you've chosen a set of aspects to begin your analysis, it doesn't mean that nothing else exists. Things you can't measure or fully comprehend can't be easily studied, but there's no logic in denying their existence just because you can't understand them.

So if anyone claims that logic says God/the afterlife/souls/anything doesn't exist, you can tell them that logic says nothing about that, and that it's just a belief like any other.

I agree :) I've always said that in a way science is rather faith based, because while science uses evidence and the scientific process to arrive at their conclusions, the bottom line is it takes a bit of faith to believe that nothing about their process is flawed in any way. When it comes to things that happened in the past, everything is a guess no matter how educated that guess is, for e sheer fact that since no one alive was actualy there to see it with their own eyes, you can't be 100% sure.

I believe that anything created by man is inherently flawed, and to believe in anything requires faith that you are right, since no one can be 100% sure of their beliefs being true.

[Gavin Luper]

Eh, aside from everything else, I just feel that we are too complex to be destined for such a short time period. With all the feelings, emotions, and other things that we experience, I find it impossible to believe that, when we die, everything just "stops". That doesn't specifically describe just my religion, but it's part of the reason I believe in it.

I feel the same way. The human condition and the spectrum of emotion, spirituality, creativity, intelligence that we possess just seems too bountiful to be reasoned down to a purely chemical inception. I can't fathom how any of that energy can just disappear.

I also agree very much with Gabi's latest post; nicely said.

Personally, I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and although I was raised to believe in God in my home life I was also encouraged to be open-minded and think about all kinds of spiritual possibilities. As it stands, I still quite love the core tenets of love that are central to Christianity and I do still believe in the love and peace preached by Jesus, but I find myself in staunch opposition to most doctrines and dogmatic thought that have sprung up around his image, especially the Catholic church.

As such, I've also allowed myself to explore spiritual ideas, as well as aspects of Buddhism and other religions, if for nothing else than curiosity's sake. I've been vaguely nihilistic at times, other times convinced that we are all individual fragments of the Soul of the World, and that essentially we all ARE God. I quite like that concept, too.

Good topic. :D

[Dryk]

I've always said that in a way science is rather faith based

I very much agree with you because how do you know that humans are able to 'know' things?

You can't, and it is an assumption made by all scientists that things are knowable.

[Lady Vulpix]

You can't, and it is an assumption made by all scientists that things are knowable.I'd say it's an assumption made by most people. Perhaps everyone but Socrates and a few others.

[Blademaster]

At least scientists TRY to explain things. Their goal is to prove themselves wrong by making new discoveries that can in turn give them new knowledge so that they can later make a new discovery that disproves the older one.

Much more efficient than staying in one spot like religion tends to do.

[Lady Vulpix]

Religion doesn't stay in one spot. Most (perhaps all) religions have had reforms over the years, and new religions have emerged or branched from older ones. And even if you decide to stick to the oldest interpretations and traditions, you can work on improving your own knowledge and you can do science too.

There is no real opposition between religion and science. You can have both.

[Blademaster]

Science 1,500 years ago: Earth is a flat disc at the center of the Universe, which is a big black space with a lot of little lights in it, and 7 big ones. The smallest things we know of might be magical particles called 'atoms.'

Science 400 years ago: Earth is a ball somewhere in a 'Solar system' composed of the 7 big lights and the Earth, all of which spin around the biggest light at the center of the Universe. The big light we spin around is fundamentally similar to the little lights, which are all farther away and are part of an even larger construct called a 'galaxy.' The smallest things we know of are indeed particles called atoms, which may be manipulated.

Science 200 years ago: Same as above, except now there's an 8th big light in our Solar system. Other galaxies exist besides ours, called the 'Milky Way,' and they come in different shapes. Also, atoms ARE manipulated, and different numbers and arrangements of atoms form different elements and compounds.

Science 100 years ago: There's a 9th big light. And atoms are made of even smaller things, such as electrons. Conversely, galaxies are grouped into clusters due to gravitational attraction and smaller spaces between them compared to other galaxies.

Science 50 years ago: There's a 10th big light, but it's really tiny compared to the others. Also, we now have a greater idea of how big space is because we know how fast light moves, and thus can gauge how far away and how old those little lights are. Also, electrons and their counterparts are made of even smaller components called quarks. Our galaxy, and others close by, are part of a massive construct called the Local Group, which is in turn a small piece of the Virgo Supercluster: a titanic collection of galaxies and clusters of galaxies spanning millions of light-years. Space itself, according to Einstein, may be made of an unbelievably small network of 'quantum foam.'

Science 5 years ago: There's a lot more than ten lights in our Solar system since the discovery and the observation of the Oort cloud, and the Universe as we know it may exist in 11 dimensions and be made not of a 'foam network,' but of infinitely tiny strings, far smaller than even the smallest quarks and neutrinos. This belief is called 'string theory.' Also, dark matter and energy, strange matter, and a whole bunch of other shit has been discovered. The Universe that we can observe is over 25 times larger than it was 30 years ago, and its edge is theorized to be over three times as far away as THAT, with an absolutely colossal Great Attractor at its center. The Universe's overall volume, even using the largest units of measurement, is well over a decillion, and even the entire Universe may be but a single piece of a Multiverse containing all possible incarnations of that Universe, which in turn is merely one representation of a Metaverse governed by the laws of an unknown Xenoverse, all encompassed in an infinitely unending realm of endless possibilities and scenarios known as the Omniverse.

And in spite of all that knowledge, we still know so little, and continue to stumble over ourselves with new discoveries and random scenarios and hypotheses every second of every day, just as we have for as long as we've been able to formulate rational thought.


Now let's compare that to a random faith.

Christianity 1,500 years ago: Follow the Bible, which is God's word because the Bible says so. Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and if you don't embrace him as your Lord and Savior, you will burn in a pit of fire and misery for all eternity. Also, if you let anybody know that you don't believe all this, you'll probably be killed in a gruesome and merciless fashion. Also, DARK AGES.

Christianity 400 years ago: Follow the Bible, which is God's word because the Bible says so. Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and if you don't embrace him as your Lord and Savior, you will burn in a pit of fire and misery for all eternity. Don't worry, though: You probably won't be killed for not believing this stuff anymore. Maybe. You'll get a lot of dirty looks, though.

Christianity 200 years ago: Follow the Bible, which is God's word because the Bible says so. Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and if you don't embrace him as your Lord and Savior, you will burn in a pit of fire and misery for all eternity. Odds of dying if you don't believe this are very low; odds of being ostracized are still quite high.

Christianity 100 years ago: Follow the Bible, which is God's word because the Bible says so. Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and if you don't embrace him as your Lord and Savior, you will burn in a pit of fire and misery for all eternity. Odds of being killed for not believing this are VERY low. Odds of being ostracized are moderate to high.

Christianity 50 years ago: Follow the Bible, which is God's word because the Bible says so. Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and if you don't embrace him as your Lord and Savior, you will burn in a pit of fire and misery for all eternity. Odds of being killed for your heresy are extremely low; odds of being ostracized are moderate.

Christianity 5 years ago: Follow the Bible, which is God's word because the Bible says so. Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and if you don't embrace him as your Lord and Savior, you will burn in a pit of fire and misery for all eternity. Odds of being killed for not believing this are nearly non-existent and have instead been replaced by an uprise in attempted recruitment. Odds of being ostracized are high in isolated areas and low in most other areas; in some places said ostracizing is replaced by condescension and genuine or faux pity.


Yep, I can see the progress alright. It's almost staggering at how similar they are in speed and consistency.

[Lady Vulpix]

There are many branches of Christianity (with different traditions and interpretations of the Bible which have evolved over time), and even more religions that aren't Christian. 1,500 ago there was no science. Many people tried to figure things out in different ways, but the procedures weren't clearly defined, the scientific method was created a long time later.

You're mixing things up, trying to classify beliefs and attitudes into religion/Christianity (which you seem to treat as synonyms for some odd reason) and science, when reality's a lot more complex than that. Some of those things are neither in the basis of religion nor in those of science (like condescension and killing for not believing in something) but are the reactions of intolerant people who can't stand anyone disagreeing with them. You have no idea how many condescending atheists I've met. And, as I said before, religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. Many well-known scientists are/were religious. Besides, what you state as the evolution of science are only different theories that have been formulated, it's not "what science says" because "science" is not a religion. It doesn't tell you what you're supposed to believe. The many existing sciences are methods to explore and construct, not dogmas. Which is why a scientist can have any religion, or none at all.

[Telume]

Well, when I went to Sunday school, the nun told us that you had to be good, or you weren't going to be one of those who were saved from the rapture...

Isn't Rapture a GOOD thing?

[Heald]

Isn't Rapture a GOOD thing?
No no, you're thinking of Raptor:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Quacker1/poster_raptorjesus.jpg

[Bear]

Blade I think you're generalizing a teeny bit. I agree with Gabi that science and religion are not opposed to each other, and both can actually work together and sometimes even AGREE on certain things. I think people just tend to focus on the subject of evolution and assume that because evolution contradicts religion, then all other science does too. Who is to say that God did not intend humans to pursue what they termed "science"? Perhaps we were designed to be this inquisitive on purpose so we would always thirst for knowledge. I think religion and science can go hand in hand if both sides quit being so stubborn and treating the two like political affiliations.

[Heald]

Evolution contradicts the story of Creation, which, by and large, is demonstrably (from a historical and theological perspective) an elaborate fairytale and a Frankenstein's monster-esque amalgamation of the various Creation stories of all the other religions floating about during the time of its inception. Not only is there absolutely no scientific basis for it, but large parts of it can be found in religions that pre-date Judaism and, by extension, Christianity. In fact, Genesis gives two rather separate accounts of Creation in an attempt to shoehorn as much of other religions' material into it as possible.

The reasons why the Theory of Evolution is so maligned by religious types are completely facetious. When Darwin first outlined the theory, the Church, by and large, was rather acceptive of it, with the typical 'wow, aren't God's creatures magnificent?' type stuff (nothing wrong with that, even if it is a little 'God of the Gaps'-ish). It was only when the realization that the Theory put forward that evolution was not an intelligent and loving thing but in fact a brutal, harsh, loveless, 'Survival of the Fittest' scenario sank in that the religious began to oppose it vehemently.

Evolution does not contradict religion at all. Evolution does contradict Creation stories that were cultural, rather than religious, but were since adopted by religions as a means of explaining why they were there and, more importantly, indoctrinating other cultures into their religion (for example, both cultures believe that they were created by the force that ripped apart the sea, earth and skies, but one culture is religious and says that God was that force, and then tells the other culture this in order to indoctrinate them). After all, being a thinking species that demands an answer for everything, coming up with a brilliantly colourful fairy-tale when your culture or civilization puts forward the question 'How were we created' is a much better answer than saying 'I don't know, stop thinking about it and get back to building pyramids' or some other equally true answer.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

This is why I love you, Heald.

[Dryk]

I'd say it's an assumption made by most people. Perhaps everyone but Socrates and a few others.

From what I understand, this was actually one of the first questions philosophers turned to but I may be wrong.


Evolution does not contradict religion at all. Evolution does contradict Creation stories that were cultural, rather than religious, but were since adopted by religions as a means of explaining why they were there and, more importantly, indoctrinating other cultures into their religion (for example, both cultures believe that they were created by the force that ripped apart the sea, earth and skies, but one culture is religious and says that God was that force, and then tells the other culture this in order to indoctrinate them). After all, being a thinking species that demands an answer for everything, coming up with a brilliantly colourful fairy-tale when your culture or civilization puts forward the question 'How were we created' is a much better answer than saying 'I don't know, stop thinking about it and get back to building pyramids' or some other equally true answer.

Bingo.

[Jay Umbreon]

Get watching some of this guy

:) he talks the kind of total sense that I enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/19/y4mWiqkGy-Y

Nope, don't believe in a God
Don't really take a 'holy book' (in fact, an incredibly archaic, man-made load of bullshit) as possessing enough proof to sway me.
Also, each and every religion (hundreds) claim they're the RIGHT one...
how can this be so?

I believe we don't know enough about anything to be certain,
but that science provides the most convincing answers, for me.
and I get my good morales, simply from being a good person.
Religion serves me with nothing but a wishy-washy answer and light comfort
that we all live forever and have someone who loves us; but I'm a big boy, I don't
need to feel that comfort, if I can't see hard evidence for its truth.

e.g. ,The bible says the world is 6,000 years old
science has proven that to be wrong.

To me, organised religion is SO obviously a tool for controlling the masses
the greatest tool in fact, it works wonders.
or perhaps, a dillusional way of thinking to provide people who are scared of 'not knowing' and scared of dying with pathetically simple and 'reassuring' answers.

But I like cold, hard, truth.

And I can't see any in any religion.

So I say, we just dont know every answer (agnosticism), but that I definitely don't agree with any of the religions out there (atheism). And science, for me, is the true pathway we we should be rallying behind, in finding out where we all came from. Science constantly endeavours to provide us with new answers, based on empirical research and observation; the answers that old religious scripture provides, will never change, never update itself, yet will sadly brainwash the masses forever.

:D

[Lady Vulpix]

Oh, Jay, I'm sorry to see that you haven't read any of our previous posts.

[Link]

Man, maybe when I have time I'll contribute more to this topic, but I will say that, despite all of people's attempts to cast a negative light on Christianity or religion, both of them will keep on going strong until the end of time.

[Magmar]

A lot of folks bring up the issue of being gay when talking about Christianity, and I know that sometimes I go off on a tangent and start pointing fingers at certain sects of Christianity for their treatment of folks who simply aren't straight. The biggest tool that many sects of Christianity use is fear--and that is why I simply cannot go to these churches. I'm going to write this post under the assumption that God and Jesus are real according to Trinitarian beliefs, despite my not believing in this.

It's not the fear of God, or of a Rapture where Jesus leaves behind all the gays, because most people regardless of sexuality are smart enough to put 2 and 2 together on that one--Jesus himself was a forgiving and peaceful man. We seldom attribute the vengeful, jealous, negative aspects of God to Jesus, rather directly to God. It becomes a sort of paradox--"Believe in Jesus and love Jesus, don't sin or God will smite you, but Jesus is God, and add in a Holy Spirit to further complicate things."

The attitude of the pastors and parishioners towards gays is what is scary--that is where you feel fear. If you believe in God, then you probably believe that God already knows that you're gay before you even realize you're gay, because most people realize--but perhaps not acknowledge--that they are attracted to the same gender during adolescence. Coming out to God isn't scary--but the humans who scream from a pupil that gayness is evil and deserves hellfire certainly are scary enough as it is. Sitting through a pentecostal sermon as a pimply gay 12 year old Pokemon Master who loves Harry Potter books sure fills you with a lot of "divine" guilt. What's worse is when your family believes the bullshit--it was like being trapped in, yes, a closet. I know I'm not alone in this experience--it happens to so many thousands of young people.

And that's really the basis of why I'm agnostic. The Bible is too contradictory. I'm confused at the notion of God and Jesus being one and the same; I'd really rather follow Jesus than God, given that God seems to be a bully. The God of the Bible doesn't seem to understand humans because he has never walked the earth as a human; this God seems to get disgusted with humanity all of the time, rains down plagues on people left and right, guides his followers into destroying cultures and stealing their resources, promotes human sacrifices, and engages mass groups of people into seances that seem silly to an outsider, but to an insider all other religions are the ones doing silly seances. I mean just look at Leviticus. Maybe God is a "jealous God" because he lacks free will. Maybe he's jealous that Adam and Eve ate the fruit before he got a chance to. Maybe all the crazy stringent Biblical laws are God's way of preventing humanity from reaching its full potential, holding people back from exploring the world, life, sexuality, dating, and learning about the universe.

Of course, this is all assuming that God is as the Bible portrays him. If that is the case, then I really wish God could come down from the heavens on a nice fluffy cloud and play cards with me for hours, and just chat. I want to understand God and what is out there, but I simply cannot go with the modern interpretation. Maybe I'm more spiritual than I give myself credit for. I'm really curious. Maybe we all really do get reincarnated. I read something about the phase of the moon when you're born and how it corresponds to which phase of karma and reincarnation you are in, and I'm apparently a really old soul on my way out just 'cuz I was born the day before a new moon and cuz apparently the moon's in "the 12th house" (?) in my planet chart thinger with the signs all wrong apparently haha. (I always thought it was just quaint that I was born at both sunrise and moonrise) If that's the truth, then I wonder if I can recall me some past lives. According to that belief, growing up in an abusive household was karmic retribution for crimes of my past lives and now "hey everything's hunky dory you can enjoy life now"... And again, that's something that I just can't wrap my head around. If I can't remember these "crimes", why should I be punished for them? To my knowledge, I was born, grew up and here I am today.

Sober musings from Magmar.

[Blademaster]

1,500 ago there was no science. Many people tried to figure things out in different ways, but the procedures weren't clearly defined, the scientific method was created a long time later.

It's REALLY hard for me to take anything you say seriously after reading this.

Modern science =/= science.

Mathematics is a form of science, and it has existed since the dawn of the Uni/Multi/Omni/Infini/Kerbumplyverse. One and one has ALWAYS been two.

Mechanical science has existed since the dawn of mankind, when the dumbest of slope-foreheaded grunting cavemen learned to operate the wheel and the practical application of the flame.

Agricultural science has been in practice since the earliest tribes of humans figured out how to irrigate, how and when to plant and harvest, what to hunt and what for (meat, bone for tools and weapons, skin and fur for clothing, etc.), and how the seasons operate.

Chemistry has been in practice since the ancient Mesopotamians and Sumerians learned that clay could be baked to make tools and weapons, that precious materials could be extracted from ore via metallurgy, that chemical mixture could be fermented into beverages or extracted from nature and used as medicine.

Physics have been known and theorized (albeit philosophically moreso than literally) since the first astrometric maps, the construction of Stonehenge and the ancient Chinese creation of the compass, and the coining of atomism - which indeed happened a bit over 1,500 years ago.

It may have been poorly understood to most, but those who DID understand it used their knowledge for centuries, and much of it - included everything I just listed - is still in use to this day.



Besides, what you state as the evolution of science are only different theories that have been formulated, it's not "what science says" because "science" is not a religion. It doesn't tell you what you're supposed to believe. The many existing sciences are methods to explore and construct, not dogmas.

See


At least scientists TRY to explain things. Their goal is to prove themselves wrong by making new discoveries that can in turn give them new knowledge so that they can later make a new discovery that disproves THAT older one in turn.


Which is why a scientist can have any religion, or none at all.

I never said a scientist couldn't have a religion. A religious scientist can still learn a lot, disproving old theories and formulating new ones about the world around him/her. This is helpful to the scientific community and to the world as a whole.

But if you flip the roles, what happens? A religious person can learn physics, math, chemistry, anthropology, whatever -ology, -ometry, or -ism you can throw at them. Their life belief is still always going to be "God made everything.," and it will rarely change. Which is fine with me.

Just keep it to yourself. I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts.

[Lady Vulpix]

You can take anything people do or have done in the past and call it science, but that won't make it science. Making tools isn't science, and ancient mathematics were closer to philosophy than to what they are now. And I'm talking about the times of Ancient Greece, Egypt, etc. Before that people used numbers to count, but that was all there was to it. And therewas a time when even numbers hadn't been invented, so I don't see where you're going with your "Dawn of the *verse" argument.

As I said, people strived for knowledge, but there wasn't a defined method. The search for knowledge in itself isn't science. I'm not saying that it's worse or less valid, it's just not the same thing.

And sure, setting aside those who convert from one religion to another or just take or leave religion as they change their convictions, religious people will always believe that God (or Gods) exist, just like atheistic people will always believe there is nop God. What's the point you're trying to make?



Just keep it to yourself. I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts.That sounds funny coming from you. Who's the one who doesn't back up his claims, here and in most other discussions?

[Blademaster]

You can take anything people do or have done in the past and call it science, but that won't make it science.

Science. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science)


2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge

Holy shit on a hot dog roll! Learning shit and then organizing and applying it is science! You got an exact date of origin for when THAT started to happen?

Here's a hint: I'm pretty sure it was more than 1499 years ago.





Making tools isn't science,

So engineering isn't science, metallurgy isn't science, smithing isn't science, programming a computer isn't science, building a fucking spaceship isn't science...


and ancient mathematics were closer to philosophy than to what they are now. And I'm talking about the times of Ancient Greece, Egypt, etc. Before that people used numbers to count, but that was all there was to it. And therewas a time when even numbers hadn't been invented, so I don't see where you're going with your "Dawn of the *verse" argument.

I know this is Misc. and not Mt. Moon, but I am honestly getting a headache from STUPIDITY.

First off, philosophical or evidential, math is still a science, and even ancient mathematic principles are still in use today. Pi? Euclidean geometry? Pythagorean theory? Do we still use this stuff? Yes. Is it science now? Yes. Was it science then? According to that handy little 'dictionary' thingy, yes it is.

Second, nobody 'invented' numbers. They've always existed. There's a difference between a number and a numeral.

And third, you just admitted the point I've been trying to prove: Ancient Greece, Egypt, and such used math in a systematic, scientific manner. Prior to 1,500 years ago. A time when, according to you, science did not exist.


What's the point you're trying to make?

See


Which is fine with me.

Just keep it to yourself. I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts.

And yes, I heard you the first time. I could easily ignore the topic. But this is a public forum, where all opinions and viewpoints are welcome, and thus are all open to criticism if they sound idiotic. And we all know that when it comes to idiocy, I have a LOT to say.


That sounds funny coming from you. Who's the one who doesn't back up his claims, here and in most other discussions?

Considering I'm the one here with a dictionary and an established knowledge of some basic scientific history, I'm going to assume the 'his' in this instance is you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need some Ibuprofen.

[Cirrus]

I do believe in God and such, but I don't even really go to church.......-.

[Lady Vulpix]

Blade: you consistently skip the word 'systematic' in your interpretation of the definition. Just learning things and applying them isn't science, otherwise speaking and walking would be science because they're things we've learnt and apply. You're twisting the definition to suit your needs. There are many useful things that have been created or discovered by means other than the scientific method, so just because we're using something it doesn't mean it was found through science. In any case, it's a semantic discussion about the definition of the word 'science', and that's off-topic on this thread.

But I must warn you that there's a dangerous fallacy in the reasoning: "science is everything we know and use, everything people call science is real and useful, everything that people don't call science is untrue and useless". Each one of those 3 statements can lead to trouble if you believe them and use them in an argument.

[Asilynne]

I agree with LV up there, I thought you at least would understand that Blade, what with your fascination with Schrodingers cat and all.

As for your comment about religion staying relatively the same after thousands of years and science constantly evolving, I think the only reason for that is the thing we "knew" scientifically keeps getting proven undeniably wrong, whereas we cannot disprove without a doubt the beliefs of religion. With the earth revolving around the sun instead of the other way around, that changed because we were slapped in the face with undeniable proof that our earlier beliefs in that regard were wrong. So saying that science is "better" than religion because science is always changing and religion doesn't is an ignorant belief, since science changes because we realize we are WRONG constantly over the years.

You can be religious and still be interested in and study scientific things, as LV also said. So long as you realize that neither science nor religion have ALL the answers, and that the things we learn and theorize may and probably will end up being proven wrong as time goes on, then you can stay open minded about possibilities. Otherwise to believe that we know everything means we stop growing and start dying.

[Link]

I do believe in God and such, but I don't even really go to church.......-.

Why not?

[Heald]

I like that part in the Bible that says you can't be a Christian unless you go to a building known as a church every Sunday.

[Asilynne]

I thought the bible said something like as long as two people meet in my name it's considered a church. I don't go to church either because a lot of people at any of the churches I went to were a bit judgmental, and I don't need a preacher to talk to God for me.

[Blademaster]

Right, I'm tired of being polite.

You know, as much as I enjoy playing quote tag with people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, and as much as I could continue shooting down your arguments of systematicism not existing despite libraries and widely observed transcripts dating back to the fucking Babylonians that are still in use today, I think I'm just going to end this here and now:


There are many useful things that have been created or discovered by means other than the scientific method, so just because we're using something it doesn't mean it was found through science.

My argument was originally that religion doesn't evolve, and science does. You disagreed. I cited some examples starting from 1500 years ago. You refuted that science hadn't been 'invented' yet or whatever and that scientific method came about much later.

THAT is my argument. That science existed prior to 1500 years ago. You disagree?

WRONG. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method)


An Egyptian medical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_medicine) textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Smith_papyrus), (circa 1600 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century_BC)), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#cite_note-1) which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_method) of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._R._Lloyd)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#cite_note-2) played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebers_papyrus) (circa 1550 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century_BC)) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). By the middle of the first millennium BC in Mesopotamia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia), Babylonian astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy) had evolved into the earliest example of a scientific astronomy, as it was "the first and highly successful attempt at giving a refined mathematical description of astronomical phenomena."

1600 BC, 1550 BC, and the first millennium BC are ALL older than 1500 years ago, and they had scientific methods.

Check. Fucking. Mate.

Now, I believe I have proven my point. Everyone I have talked to on this matter agrees with me. Friends on TPM. Friends off TPM. My strictly Christian 70 year-old grandma. My 60 year-old dad who as of last year was fucking stupid enough to believe that SPAIN is in SOUTH AMERICA.

Can I PLEASE leave now?


In any case, it's a semantic discussion about the definition of the word 'science', and that's off-topic on this thread.

I'm going to take that as a pre-emptive "Yes.," and assume that the matter will be dropped here, without further response that drips with ignorance, condescension, and/or Mod/Supermod/Admin power plays because I'm being mean to Gabi QQ.


I agree with LV up there, I thought you at least would understand that Blade, what with your fascination with Schrodingers cat and all.

Haven't we already been through this? My extent of knowledge about Schrodinger is this. (http://kayleeweinberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/largeAnimePaperwallpapers_Hellsing_mindlesspuppet1 .6__THISRES__88623.jpg)

Sorry to be so brash, but as I said before, I get annoyed when I'm preached to by a person with absolutely no way to back up their claim and thus no way to argue against it without going in circles for several hundred posts, and that's the direction this debate is going, has gone, and will continue to go.

And my pizza is getting cold, so I can't take it right now.

Ta.

[Heald]

Okay guys, I'm calling a moratorium on any discussion not explicitly related to the thread title. This includes members, mods, supermods, admins, and Norm from Cheers. I'm not taking sides, but please, no one cares.

[Markiss]

I love god and everything but im not religious. I used to go to church a lot a few years ago though.

[Leon-IH]

Mathematics is a form of science, and it has existed since the dawn of the Uni/Multi/Omni/Infini/Kerbumplyverse. One and one has ALWAYS been two.

The concept of Zero did not exist, however.

[Blademaster]

Yes it did, because zero doesn't exist as...

I mean, because zero... exists... ...but it... doesn't... I mean, it's nothing, but it's a thing... that...

...it...

...but...

........uh...

...

*sigh*

Well played. :grumble: