Smart people don't believe in god...

[FaramirK]

One- I disagree, but then, I don't believe in the concept of "sin".

 

Fair enough. No point continuing that part of the discussion.

 

Two- How does a "perfect" god have a complete change in personality from one Testament to the next?

 

Once again, your made up personality change doesn't exist.

 

How can he have a "Chosen People"?

 

He chose the Jews to be his special representatives on earth, and they ultimately rejeccted him, and were taken into captivity by the Assyrians and Babylonians.

 

I'm particularly curious why a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient deity would insist on being worshipped under pain of eternal punishment.

 

He doesn't. He created a paradise that mankind lost through sin. He fforgave them, and offers a way to escape eternal punishment, which YOU CHOOSE to stay in. If you are guilty, and the Judge says "You must return what you stole or face a much more severe penalty", and you refuse, it's your own fault. But this is a moot point if you don't believe you are guilty, and so I think this discussion also ends like the first point.

 

Me, I don't have God and I'm doin' just fine!

 

Really? Why attack something so violently that you are convinced isn't real? Guilt? "

 

You just have a tremendous psychological need for him to exist because a world without purpose and an everlasting death are too much for you to handle.

 

Without purpose? So, in your philosophy, everything is meaningless? If you truely believe that, I pity you. You essentially said that you, your morality and your knowledge are purposeless and futile.

 

I have no problem comprehending oblivion, it is rather simple. If you are right, I will have lived a very happy life, and die knowing I tried to make the world a better, happier place - even if in vain.

 

What if I'm right, A.S.V?

 

Hey, you read my mind and I'll read yours.

 

My most favourite game of all...one I'm very well educated in...

[FaramirK]

When parents try to  punish their children, what is better - to Hit and make them fear physical pain, or to teach and make them understand?

 

Or both? If a child is trying to grab a hot iron and will not listen to "No", a quick slap on the wrist is exactly what the doctor ordered. It teaches them the consequences of touching a hot iron (pain) and also protects them form a much greater injury.

 

And, consequently, there are many times in the bible that God uses this method to teach.

[WITHTEETH]

Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve are innocent (Ignorant) they do not know right from wrong, because they live in a Utopia. Its a joke that "God" couldn't see this coming. and then to make people live outside a utopia over an apple.

 

schizophrenia?

[FaramirK]

Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve are innocent(Ignorant) they do not know right from wrong, because they live in a Utopia. Its a joke that "God" couldn't see this coming. and then to make people live outside a utopia over an apple.

 

schizophrenia?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What about Schizophrenia? God could see it coming. He gave them the choice to obey or disobey. Why is this concept of personal freedom proving so hard to understand?

[Reveilled]

Who put God in charge anyway? I didn't vote for him.

[FaramirK]

Who put God in charge anyway?  I didn't vote for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, didn't the Lady of the Lake have something to do with it?

[Drakron]

... For some, the Bible is not so much an authority owing to it being the word of God, as much as it is an attempt of a people within in a continuum of faith to articulate that which they hear and feel God emote...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But its ends up being since its the church dogma.

 

That is a issue with most faiths that based their dogma in a document, the holy roman catholic church does not grant women the same rights as males have in the church hierarchy even now.

 

The issue because strong and religions split, the "cults" we see now are exactly the same of what happened with the protestant movements of centuries ago.

 

Also if you read the bible there is no mistake over what is the word of God since they almost flat out write "God come to me and said".

[metadigital]

Who put God in charge anyway?  I didn't vote for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We live in an an anarcho-syndicalist commune, not some self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes are exploited in a theocratic dictatorship ...

 

Well, didn't the Lady of the Lake have something to do with it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony ... you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you ... if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

[metadigital]

But its ends up being since its the church dogma.

 

That is a issue with most faiths that based their dogma in a document, the holy roman catholic church does not grant women the same rights as males have in the church hierarchy even now.

 

The issue because strong and religions split, the "cults" we see now are exactly the same of what happened with the protestant movements of centuries ago.

 

Also if you read the bible there is no mistake over what is the word of God since they almost flat out write "God come to me and said".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's ironic that the catholic faith, which was born of rebellion from the oppressive dogma has become the oppressive dogma that in turn is rebelled against by the modern faiths.

 

Then again, The Church of Latter Day Saints regard themselves as Christians, too, and Jehova's Witnesses. Every crackpot Church davidian, Jonestown .... just look at the schisms in the last two millennia! How many Popes have just said whatever was expedient -- not just for the Church, but for their own personal gain? Popes with multiple wives; Popes that ordered the Crusades ... talk about ex cathedra infallibility being the worst dogma.

 

 

[Reveilled]

Who put God in charge anyway?  I didn't vote for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Reminds me of Monty Python and the quest for the Holy Grail...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You read my mind. I can see it now...

 

God: I order you not to eat from the tree of Knowledge!

Eve: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

God: I am the supreme being!

Eve: Well, I didn't vote for you.

God: You don't vote for Gods!

Eve: Well, how did you become God then?

God: I've always been God!

Adam: Listen. Eternal Existence and supreme power is no basis for a religion. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical words beginning with "omni"!

God: Shut up!

Adam: I mean, if I went round saying I was God just because I'm really old, they'd put me away!

[Adam eats an apple]

God: Stop that! I cast you out of this garden!

Adam: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

 

 

But on a more or less serious note, why do you believe out of all the religions there are, Chrisitanity and its book are the correct religion? I mean, your God doesn't even take the time to have one to one chats with you. No offence, but a Supreme Being that doesn't talk back to you seems like a pretty crappy Deity given the choices out there.

[FaramirK]

Who put God in charge anyway?  I didn't vote for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Reminds me of Monty Python and the quest for the Holy Grail...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You read my mind. I can see it now...

 

Like I told 'Vixen, its a speciality of mine...

 

But on a more or less serious note, why do you believe out of all the religions there are, Chrisitanity and its book are the correct religion?  I mean, your God doesn't even take the time to have one to one chats with you.  No offence, but a Supreme Being that doesn't talk back to you seems like a pretty crappy Deity given the choices out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If your asking about the series of events that took me from Communism to Christianity its a long, long story...and I do sense God's presense in my life, even if he doesn't physically manifest himself and talk over a hot cup of tea.

[metadigital]

You read my mind.  I can see it now...

 

God: I order you not to eat from the tree of Knowledge!

Eve: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

God: I am the supreme being!

Eve: Well, I didn't vote for you.

God: You don't vote for Gods!

Eve: Well, how did you become God then?

God: I've always been God!

Adam:  Listen. Eternal Existence and supreme power is no basis for a religion. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical words beginning with "omni"!

God: Shut up!

Adam:  I mean, if I went round saying I was God just because I'm really old, they'd put me away!

[Adam eats an apple]

God: Stop that!  I cast you out of this garden!

Adam: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

 

 

But on a more or less serious note, why do you believe out of all the religions there are, Chrisitanity and its book are the correct religion?  I mean, your God doesn't even take the time to have one to one chats with you.  No offence, but a Supreme Being that doesn't talk back to you seems like a pretty crappy Deity given the choices out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you ever see the interview with John Cleese, Michael Palin and the Archbishop of Cantebury? (I'm not making this up!) It wsa shortly after the release of Life of Brian, and it demonstrated how much the Church wishes to avoid any direct scrutiny, by simply denying any possibility of rational debate on the historical Jesus ... which all clergy must come to terms with in their studies but which they keep from the laity. Featured the best put down I have heard for an Archbishop (by Mr Palin) ...

 

Be careful some of them might hear God respond ...

[FaramirK]

Did you ever see the interview with John Cleese, Michael Palin and the Archbishop of Cantebury? (I'm not making this up!) It wsa shortly after the release of Life of Brian, and it demonstrated how much the Church wishes to avoid any direct scrutiny, by simply denying any possibility of rational debate on the historical Jesus ... which all clergy must come to terms with in their studies but which they keep from the laity. Featured the best put down I have heard for an Archbishop (by Mr Palin) ...

 

Yes, I did. Why waste your breath attacking a comedy? But I've never had much respect for your Archbishop's choice of battlegrounds...

[Fionavar]

I guess this is an interesting point. Unfortunately there are far too many fundamentalists who demand strict observance of their literal interpretation. This viewpoint is itself quite progressive.

 

Though the media is keen to polarise perceptions about 'who' and 'what' a Christian is, the fact is that there is a large range of theologies denominationally that indicate that there is really no 'normal' or 'standard' point of view. The Radical Theology with which I feel comfort is neither dominant nor fringe, it has a voice within the Church as an extension of the Body of Christ. It is easy to engage in polemic against Christianity by citing verse literally to challenge those who claim literalism as an authority for their more fundamental theology - sort of ironic. For me, I find that there is so much history and depth to Christianity that it requires an intentionality that takes a lifetime to begin to find comfort with it as an expression of one's spirituality, as opposed to dogma.

 

That is a issue with most faiths that based their dogma in a document, the holy roman catholic church does not grant women the same rights as males have in the church hierarchy even now.

 

Part of any difficulty that revolves around a discussion of Religion is the use of language. The set of assumptions and biases that are never checked can end up juxtaposing people before they even attempt dialogue.

 

Your use of faith - for instance - is what I would call belief. Faith is not an articulate set of precepts - rather it is, for me, what one knows through discernment. Beliefs are linguistic attempts to intellectually describe faith. The problem is that once written, there is a tendency to concentrate upon the word and not the fact that it is the expression of one person at one moment who would likely describe it otherwise the next time. Though this may seem semantic, perhaps even pedantic, it is important to normalise such discussion in order to attempt to establish a shared vocabulary. In such a pluralist society, there is a tendency for two people to debate a point, using the very same words, when they are fact in possession of very different meanings.

 

Though I am not a Roman Catholic, I would say that the RC tradition has in fact a great respect for women. I would contend, though I may disagree with my Brothers and Sisters of the RC denomination with various areas of interpretation and theology, that there is indeed a sanctity with which the RC tradition holds and honours women. Blanket statements about anyone's tradition can be difficult to defend on a personal basis. I am not an apologist for the treatment of women within the RC tradition, but nor am I comfortable using a generalisation to identify a truth.

[metadigital]

If your asking about the series of events that took me from Communism to Christianity its a long, long story...and I do sense God's presense in my life, even if he doesn't physically manifest himself and talk over a hot cup of tea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you may have over-compensated for the godless state of Communism to bound headlong into an intimate relationship with a metaphysical being, but each to his/her own ...

[FaramirK]

I guess this is an interesting point. Unfortunately there are far too many fundamentalists who demand strict observance of their literal interpretation. This viewpoint is itself quite progressive.

 

Though the media is keen to polarise perceptions about 'who' and 'what' a Christian is, the fact is that there is a large range of theologies denominationally that indicate that there is really no 'normal' or 'standard' point of view. The Radical Theology with which I feel comfort is neither dominant nor fringe, it has a voice within the Church as an extension of the Body of Christ. It is easy to engage in polemic against Christianity by citing verse literally to challenge those who claim literalism as an authority for their more fundamental theology - sort of ironic. For me, I find that there is so much history and depth to Christianity that it requires an intentionality that takes a lifetime to begin to find comfort with it as an expression of one's spirituality, as opposed to dogma.

 

That is a issue with most faiths that based their dogma in a document, the holy roman catholic church does not grant women the same rights as males have in the church hierarchy even now.

 

Part of any difficulty that revolves around a discussion of Religion is the use of language. The set of assumptions and biases that are never checked can end up juxtaposing people before they even attempt dialogue.

 

Your use of faith - for instance - is what I would call belief. Faith is not an articulate set of precepts - rather it is, for me, what one knows through discernment. Beliefs are linguistic attempts to intellectually describe faith. The problem is that once written, there is a tendency to concentrate upon the word and not the fact that it is the expression of one person at one moment who would likely describe it otherwise the next time. Though this may seem semantic, perhaps even pedantic, it is important to normalise such discussion in order to attempt to establish a shared vocabulary. In such a pluralist society, there is a tendency for two people to debate a point, using the very same words, when they are fact in possession of very different meanings.

 

Though I am not a Roman Catholic, I would say that the RC tradition has in fact a great respect for women. I would contend, though I may disagree with my Brothers and Sisters of the RC denomination with various areas of interpretation and theology, that there is indeed a sanctity with which the RC tradition holds and honours women. Blanket statements about anyone's tradition can be difficult to defend on a personal basis. I am not an apologist for the treatment of women within the RC tradition, but nor am I comfortable using a generalisation to identify a truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're a very resonable sort of dragon...

[Reveilled]

Who put God in charge anyway?  I didn't vote for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Reminds me of Monty Python and the quest for the Holy Grail...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You read my mind. I can see it now...

 

Like I told 'Vixen, its a speciality of mine...

 

But on a more or less serious note, why do you believe out of all the religions there are, Chrisitanity and its book are the correct religion?  I mean, your God doesn't even take the time to have one to one chats with you.  No offence, but a Supreme Being that doesn't talk back to you seems like a pretty crappy Deity given the choices out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If your asking about the series of events that took me from Communism to Christianity its a long, long story...and I do sense God's presense in my life, even if he doesn't physically manifest himself and talk over a hot cup of tea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, since I have some essay writing to do that will take me all night, I have a long, long time.

But my only real question is, sure you can feel God's presence, but if he's not physically identifying himself, how do you know which God it is? I mean, I can talk with Eris over a hot cup of tea, so I'm pretty sure it's her presence I feel, and her work I see all around me, but without that ability to talk with her, how would I know whether the presence I was feeling was her, Thor, Vishnu, or Jehovah?

[FaramirK]

If your asking about the series of events that took me from Communism to Christianity its a long, long story...and I do sense God's presense in my life, even if he doesn't physically manifest himself and talk over a hot cup of tea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you may have over-compensated for the godless state of Communism to bound headlong into an intimate relationship with a metaphysical being, but each to his/her own ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I guess worst-case senerio is that I'm totally wrong, but the consequences of being an "infidel" are very mild in most of the other religions...unless the Fundamentalist Muslims really are right, then I'll be in deep, deep trouble.

[FaramirK]

Well, since I have some essay writing to do that will take me all night, I have a long, long time.

But my only real question is, sure you can feel God's presence, but if he's not physically identifying himself, how do you know which God it is?  I mean, I can talk with Eris over a hot cup of tea, so I'm pretty sure it's her presence I feel, and her work I see all around me, but without that ability to talk with her, how would I know whether the presence I was feeling was her, Thor, Vishnu, or Jehovah?

 

Hmmm, 5:30 already. Enjoy your all-nighter, mine's almost over...

 

Eris? I am unfamiliar with her...

 

As for knowing its the right being, I became convinced of the Bible's truth, and decided to live by it's commands, and prayed to God for forgiveness. Since then, I've felt great peace. I have "faith" that the God of the Bible is the one true God, and that the presence I feel is him. Of course you can argue I'm being totally decieved, but that's not going to convince me I'm wrong...

[metadigital]

I guess this is an interesting point. Unfortunately there are far too many fundamentalists who demand strict observance of their literal interpretation. This viewpoint is itself quite progressive.

 

Though the media is keen to polarise perceptions about 'who' and 'what' a Christian is, the fact is that there is a large range of theologies denominationally that indicate that there is really no 'normal' or 'standard' point of view. The Radical Theology with which I feel comfort is neither dominant nor fringe, it has a voice within the Church as an extension of the Body of Christ. It is easy to engage in polemic against Christianity by citing verse literally to challenge those who claim literalism as an authority for their more fundamental theology - sort of ironic. For me, I find that there is so much history and depth to Christianity that it requires an intentionality that takes a lifetime to begin to find comfort with it as an expression of one's spirituality, as opposed to dogma.

 

That is a issue with most faiths that based their dogma in a document, the holy roman catholic church does not grant women the same rights as males have in the church hierarchy even now.

 

Part of any difficulty that revolves around a discussion of Religion is the use of language. The set of assumptions and biases that are never checked can end up juxtaposing people before they even attempt dialogue.

 

Your use of faith - for instance - is what I would call belief. Faith is not an articulate set of precepts - rather it is, for me, what one knows through discernment. Beliefs are linguistic attempts to intellectually describe faith. The problem is that once written, there is a tendency to concentrate upon the word and not the fact that it is the expression of one person at one moment who would likely describe it otherwise the next time. Though this may seem semantic, perhaps even pedantic, it is important to normalise such discussion in order to attempt to establish a shared vocabulary. In such a pluralist society, there is a tendency for two people to debate a point, using the very same words, when they are fact in possession of very different meanings.

 

Though I am not a Roman Catholic, I would say that the RC tradition has in fact a great respect for women. I would contend, though I may disagree with my Brothers and Sisters of the RC denomination with various areas of interpretation and theology, that there is indeed a sanctity with which the RC tradition holds and honours women. Blanket statements about anyone's tradition can be difficult to defend on a personal basis. I am not an apologist for the treatment of women within the RC tradition, but nor am I comfortable using a generalisation to identify a truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are hiding behind semantics. you are close to speaking in Yoda-riddles! the only way any of us will comprehend God is to devote a lifetime of prayer? Whilst I don't doubt your belief nor your sincerity, I find it meaningless to this discussion. This is how we explain away the inconsistencies of the Bible? How many Christians believe this? Roman Catholics still have icons and connonise saints!

 

I understand that most(?) Christians don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is quite extraordinary how many Christians have little or no idea what the Bible contains or represents, or have actually read it! -- and, more importantly, any other scripture, like The Qur'an. (After all, until 1967 the roman catholic mass was read in Latin: the Panza Pope Benedict XVI's first mass was back to latin.) I can only assume there is a wish for secrecy: some sort of gnosticism, which is what you seem to be saying.

 

Your literacy notwithstanding, I find christianity in general a patronising social contruct. Defending it merely impoverishes your credibility: why aren't women permitted to be Bishops? (Let alone homosexuals -- didn't Jesus preach inclusion -- prostitutes, tax collectors, gentiles, anyone except gays?)

 

I found Robert Heinlein's Job: A comedy of Justice a particularly entertaining discussion on the whole "worship-complex" of a creator being, for example.

[WITHTEETH]

Rationality is on atheist side. You can debate that god exist or unicorns and its the same debate as i see it.

[metadigital]

Well, I guess worst-case senerio is that I'm totally wrong, but the consequences of being an "infidel" are very mild in most of the other religions...unless the Fundamentalist Muslims really are right, then I'll be in deep, deep trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... or the jews.

[FaramirK]

Well, I guess worst-case senerio is that I'm totally wrong, but the consequences of being an "infidel" are very mild in most of the other religions...unless the Fundamentalist Muslims really are right, then I'll be in deep, deep trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... or the jews.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, actually, the Rabbi's today teach that non-believers go to a sort of purgatory and are cleansed for eons, then let into heaven. Sound strange? I thought so too...

[FaramirK]

Rationality is on atheist side.  You can debate that god exist or unicorns and its the same debate as i see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rationality is on the theist side. You can debate that atheistic evolution exists or unicorns and its the same debate as I see it.

[Fionavar]

Your literacy notwithstanding, I find christianity in general a patronising social contruct. Defending it merely impoverishes your credibility: why aren't women permitted to be Bishops? (Let alone homosexuals -- didn't Jesus preach inclusion -- prostitutes, tax collectors, gentiles, anyone except gays?)

 

I really cannot address the other concerns, but I can in fact state assuredly that your valid criticism is in fact not indicative of the entire Christian tradition, as it exists internationally. There are in fact many denominations - and even those that are currently struggling at this stage have active Brothers and Sisters working for this change - that are both inclusive and open to all people regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation. Furthermore, there are denominations that have leadership roles at the highest level that have been held by women, as well as non-Caucasians Though I can sympathise with your frustration, rest assured that there are in fact places and denominations where people strive within our limited capacities to be more inclusive in order to attempt to make manifest the covenant of community.