Evidence of religious foundations

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hi Adj.,

It one thing to have faith. because of spiritual or mystical experience. It's quite another to attach that experience to the "God" of the Bible.

You don't. I do. Why do you have a problem with that?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

In the same vein, why would he care whether someone believed in him or not? Seems pretty childish for something with unlimited power to send someone to hell over something so small and insignificant as belief.

Who's to say that it is small and insignificant?

You want it both ways -- to reject God and to denigrate his followers, but then you want complete mercy and absolution if you're proven to be wrong. Maybe that will happen, but if it does, it will be due to God's mercy, not your belligerence.

reply to post by adjensen


Logic tells me it is insignificant. It's kind of like saying that not liking broccoli is a big deal. Who cares what someone eats as long as no one is getting hurt in the process?

My criticism isn't aimed at followers of Christianity, otherwise I'd be bad-mouthing my parents, and that's something I would never do. My criticisms are aimed at the system and leaders of the system, not the followers. I don't feel like my criticisms are unfair either, but to each his own. Oh, and I don't reject God, just yours.

Thanks for the reply.

ETA: I think it's a little convenient that no one gets proven right or wrong until after they die. You know, when they can't tell anyone else about it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Logic tells me it is insignificant. It's kind of like saying that not liking broccoli is a big deal. Who cares what someone eats as long as no one is getting hurt in the process?

If all you eat is sweets, do you think that you'll live a long, healthy life?

ETA: I think it's a little convenient that no one gets proven right or wrong until after they die. You know, when they can't tell anyone else about it.

I suppose that the "proven" bit is true, but many people of faith have the faith of conviction, the knowledge that they are right. You can disagree with their conclusion all you like, but without that conviction, you're correct -- you'll not know until you die, when Christianity says that it's too late to change your mind.

reply to post by adjensen


Probably not, but I fail to see how that's relevant.

Which is convenient for those making big bucks off of god.

ETA: I see what your point was now, sorry about that. I had a brainfart.

If someone chooses to eat sweets then that is their choice. You don't see anyone coming in and taking them to jail for it because it affects no one else but that person. I don't see why it would be any different for god/belief.

Also, if a non-believer does good his whole life and helps others, why would his disbelief nullify his good deeds?

Originally posted by deadeyedick

that makes the religious texts an insult to mankind's intelligence.

You speak like a man beating a tree with a stick while searching for the forest he is lost in. Mankind's intelligence has hidden the things you seek.

You mean its creators hid the things necessary or (unnecessary) for a reason. Keep mankind in a constant state of unknowing and turmoil; itself as God will not be vetted. Machiavellian. Humankind is on a quest to discover its roots which will never be fully explained, overlook God and in so doing It remains unscrutinized. Not sure Man is ready for the real truth.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by RagnarDanniskjold

 

but with that being said if you were an all seeing all knowing creator that only wanted faith would you leave evidence laying around.

A god that wants to be worshiped and loved, yet leaves no evidence of his existence. This is another insane religious premise. I wonder if Bill Gates hears me when I try to enter his mind and whisper for him to send me 10 million dollars? He probably doesn't because he's never entered my mind to say No. Or maybe I should have faith in that he did try, even though I have no evidence for it.

I wont argue with you over your belief, I was just sharing mine, I respect your opinion and the fact that you have every right to it. You wont dissuade my faith in what I believe because its just that a belief, I am a logical minded person and there is a lot of thing to main stream religions that don't make sense to me either like pretty much all of your points in your original post I agree with. All I know for me is that when I pray it makes me feel comforted and like I am actually connected to someone or something and it sometimes gives me an answer, maybe that's just my conscience but it works for me.

I think a lot of these discussions are things that all of need to remember no one can tell anyone else they are wrong because there is no 100% evidence to prove or disprove.

P.S. I'm sorry Bill Gates didn't answer I'm sure he still loves you though

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hi Adj.,

It one thing to have faith. because of spiritual or mystical experience. It's quite another to attach that experience to the "God" of the Bible.

You don't. I do. Why do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with people who exploit the awe one feels from something like a sunset or pictures from the Hubble, or the sense of belonging and peace one experiences from a lovers heartbeat, and who claim: "Yeah, my guy, who says (insert convenient dogma here) did that!" "See, there is a God, and my guy, from bible stories, IS that guy! And, if you don't believe me, ' you go to hell!'"

I have a problem with "people" who manipulate the emotions of the vulnerable, indoctrinating people from a young age to identify their emotional experiences with their version of a god of bible stories, to justify their usury.

reply to post by RagnarDanniskjold

You wont dissuade my faith in what I believe because its just that a belief, I am a logical minded person

Can faith (without any evidence whatsoever) and logic go hand in hand? If a woman believes that someone is breaking into her house every night and raping her, can she be considered logical-minded if all the doors and windows are locked and unbroken, and she is taken to the hospital where doctors declare that she has not been violated at all?

When you claim that you are logical minded, how can anyone know that of him or herself? Recently, at 5:30 in the morning I stopped at a store before work. Hanging around outside the store was a man mumbling to himself. He had a dull pencil in one hand and a wad of scrap paper he must've retrieved from a dumpster in the other hand. He also had three inches of snot hanging from his nose. He asked if I would let him interview me on the subject of the Massachusetts lottery. He promised that this article he was writing would be in the newspaper.

When I refused, he looked at me as if I were insane, because, of course, he was a logical minded person and I wasn't.

You wont dissuade my faith in what I believe because its just that a belief,

This declares that no matter how logical the argument is against your belief, and no matter how illogical your belief is, you are still going to believe it no matter what. This is not logical thinking - it's insanely rigid thinking. Even as an atheist I am willing to concede that there are curiosities in the world that sure look intelligently designed; that, I cannot discount an intelligent agent of SOME kind. But, I can sure look at religious texts and tell you that those biblical gods are 100% NOT real.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Also, if a non-believer does good his whole life and helps others, why would his disbelief nullify his good deeds?

I don't believe that I've ever said that it does. As a Roman Catholic, I don't believe that it is a lack of faith that condemns you, but rather an intentional rejection of Christ. There are obviously good people who never had the chance to know him, and it would be unjust if they were just abjectly shoved off due to the circumstances of their birth.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hi Adj.,

It one thing to have faith. because of spiritual or mystical experience. It's quite another to attach that experience to the "God" of the Bible.

You don't. I do. Why do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with people who exploit the awe one feels from something like a sunset or pictures from the Hubble, or the sense of belonging and peace one experiences from a lovers heartbeat, and who claim: "Yeah, my guy, who says (insert convenient dogma here) did that!" "See, there is a God, and my guy, from bible stories, IS that guy! And, if you don't believe me, ' you go to hell!'"

Kindly point out where I have ever said that.

You're objecting to me associating personal experiences in my life with God, but as you are neither me, nor the one who has had those experiences, you are not within your rights to claim that you're right and I'm wrong. And none of it is associated with "sunsets, lollipops or puppy dogs" (well, maybe a bit on the "puppy dog" end, lol) -- they are pragmatic events that happened to me and that I, personally, take as being evidential. I never said that you have to, so once again, as to associating experiences with the God of Christianity -- You don't. I do. Why do you have a problem with that?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hi Adj.,

It one thing to have faith. because of spiritual or mystical experience. It's quite another to attach that experience to the "God" of the Bible.

You don't. I do. Why do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with people who exploit the awe one feels from something like a sunset or pictures from the Hubble, or the sense of belonging and peace one experiences from a lovers heartbeat, and who claim: "Yeah, my guy, who says (insert convenient dogma here) did that!" "See, there is a God, and my guy, from bible stories, IS that guy! And, if you don't believe me, ' you go to hell!'"

Kindly point out where I have ever said that.

You're objecting to me associating personal experiences in my life with God, but as you are neither me, nor the one who has had those experiences, you are not within your rights to claim that you're right and I'm wrong. And none of it is associated with "sunsets, lollipops or puppy dogs" (well, maybe a bit on the "puppy dog" end, lol) -- they are pragmatic events that happened to me and that I, personally, take as being evidential. I never said that you have to, so once again, as to associating experiences with the God of Christianity -- You don't. I do. Why do you have a problem with that?

There you go again taking everything so personally. I explained my objections. Or, are you one of those people my post described?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
So, he doesn't care if his words get distorted through time. He doesn't care that evidence of his visits to earth gets lost?

Why would he? What does God care if Nebuchadnezzar carts off the Ark of the Covenant and melts it down?

But when it comes to faith with NO evidence whatsoever, perhaps you should look up the words 'gullible' and 'sucker'.

Most of us with faith have seen evidence, but it is personal and is of no purpose to anyone other than that person. Whether you have never seen evidence, or you've simply never recognized it for what it is, is a matter for another discussion.

Perhaps you are one of those people, as you are insinuating that either people have never "seen" the evidence for your version of God, or they just never recognized it. It's like you're saying "Bible stories are true, some people just can't see it!"

All I'm saying is that a mystical or spiritual experience doesn't prove bible stories are true, and some people appeal to emotions to suggest that emotions prove the existence of God, therefore, bible stories are true and their version of god is correct.

For example, look at this kitten!



Isn't it cute. Doesn't it just melt your heart. That's the way God feels about us. See? The Bible is true! God loves you! God is love!

Sorry. That doesn't work for me. Because I have experienced love and an awe of nature doesn't mean that I accept that the murderous, blood thirsty deity of the Old Testament is GOD! There is no amount of emotional razzle dazzle that can convince me otherwise.

Originally posted by windword
There you go again taking everything so personally. I explained my objections. Or, are you one of those people my post described?

Why wouldn't I take it personally? You implied that I saw a sunset, went gaga and decided that God exists -- a very vapid perspective on faith, and not remotely relevant to what I said.

Perhaps you are one of those people, as you are insinuating that either people have never "seen" the evidence for your version of God, or they just never recognized it. It's like you're saying "Bible stories are true, some people just can't see it!"

Where did I ever say "Bible stories are true" (at least as regards the Hebrew Bible.)

Once again, you're belittling me by implying that just because there are those who act a certain way, because I have come to the same conclusions, I must be the same. That's disingenuous and insulting.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
There you go again taking everything so personally. I explained my objections. Or, are you one of those people my post described?

Why wouldn't I take it personally? You implied that I saw a sunset, went gaga and decided that God exists -- a very vapid perspective on faith, and not remotely relevant to what I said.

My post was not directed at you personally. I was using your statement as a spring board to express my opinion. Here's what was said:

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hi Adj.,

It's one thing to have faith. because of spiritual or mystical experience. It's quite another to attach that experience to the "God" of the Bible.

You don't. I do. Why do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with people who exploit the awe one feels from something like a sunset or pictures from the Hubble, or the sense of belonging and peace one experiences from a lovers heartbeat, and who claim: "Yeah, my guy, who says (insert convenient dogma here) did that!" "See, there is a God, and my guy, from bible stories, IS that guy! And, if you don't believe me, ' you go to hell!'"

I have a problem with "people" who manipulate the emotions of the vulnerable, indoctrinating people from a young age to identify their emotional experiences with their version of a god of bible stories, to justify their usury.

If you take personal exception to my comment, perhaps it hit too close to home.

reply to post by adjensen


So what is the point of Jesus coming to Earth if he wasn't exactly needed? Are you saying that those who have never heard of Jesus still get into heaven? Why couldn't god have kept it that way instead of sending Jesus knowing people would reject him in the end?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So what is the point of Jesus coming to Earth if he wasn't exactly needed? Are you saying that those who have never heard of Jesus still get into heaven?

First of all, Jesus came to save the world, not to get recruits for another world.
Jesus broke the spell that was over the world that said that proper religious practice towards the gods was so much ritual.
That freed people up to do things that were actually helpful to other people, thus making the world generally a better place for everyone.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
First of all, Jesus came to save the world, not to get recruits for another world.
Jesus broke the spell that was over the world that said that proper religious practice towards the gods was so much ritual.
That freed people up to do things that were actually helpful to other people, thus making the world generally a better place for everyone.

Ahh so Jesus was sent to give us more free time?

Does this mean things like the washing machine or the hoover also 'saved' the world?

Is the freeing up of some of our spare time really the reason we've had to endure Christianity for the past 2000 years?

Doesn't seem worth it tbh.....

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

So what is the point of Jesus coming to Earth if he wasn't exactly needed? Are you saying that those who have never heard of Jesus still get into heaven?

First of all, Jesus came to save the world, not to get recruits for another world.
Jesus broke the spell that was over the world that said that proper religious practice towards the gods was so much ritual.
That freed people up to do things that were actually helpful to other people, thus making the world generally a better place for everyone.

No offense, but you people really need to unify your beliefs. I'm an atheist and even I know that Jesus supposedly came here to prepare a place for us in heaven. As individuals the religious have twisted and warped the biblical stories to the point where all meaning is lost. And it is hard to debate one aspect of Christian or Islamic faith when all of you make up your own meanings to those beliefs.

reply to post by jiggerj

I'm an atheist and even I know that Jesus supposedly came here to prepare a place for us in heaven.

There is a quote in the Gospel that people think says that.
I thought of it as I was writing my reply.
John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?

That's the English Standard Version, which seems to phrase it a little differently than the old King James version.
I have done some extensive research into the subject and the conclusion I have come to is that when the New Testament talks about a "dwelling" in this way, it means a religious system.
Jesus left, after he was resurrected.
He went to Heaven to have a special meeting with God as "the Son of Man".
The prophetic duty of that character is to receive a spiritual gift from the Ancient of Days, to take back to his fellows in a way that is similar to how God Himself acts.
Jesus appeared to his surviving disciples and gave them the spirit necessary to found his church.
So, that fulfilled Jesus' own prophecy, that he went away to prepare a place, which means, instead of the temple, there would be the church.
Paul is saying the same thing in 2 Corinthians 5, talking about if the tent is folded up, God will erect a new one.
The theme of the Bible is not what happens or where we go in some afterlife, but how God interacts with humans on this earth and in this life.
The OT had a tent in the wilderness, then a temple.
The NT has, first the temple, then the church, the analog of those first two "buildings".

reply to post by jmdewey60

I have done some extensive research into the subject and the conclusion I have come to

That's just it. A billion people could each come to different conclusions. What kind of teaching is this when it can be rendered useless and meaningless through myriad interpretations?

Let's take what is probably the only clear statement in the bible, which is god's commandment of Thou shalt not murder. How can this be misinterpreted? It doesn't mean, okay to murder sometimes. It doesn't mean, okay to murder in the name of god. The commandment could not be clearer - thou shalt not murder.

The Jews knew this, and yet they justified killing Jesus. It doesn't matter whatever reason they had. The law is clear - thou shalt not murder.

But, it was actually okay to murder Jesus. Instead of the murderers going to hell, what they got was the opportunity to be forgiven and go to heaven. Breaking this commandment supposedly gave everyone a chance to repent their sins. So, murder is not against the law. Apparently, murder is good.

If that one clear and irrefutable commandment can be so misinterpreted, it makes every other biblical statement utterly irrelevant along with it. If one book can be interpreted to fit every side of every circumstance, then what good is it?