@Rabban

You don't understand me. I never said you were a fanatic, only that by accepting to believe anything without using your mind seems like a step in that direction to me. Now, you go too far when you tell me:

"you don't seem to see any validity in anyone's faith or beliefs ".

I'm open to anything, and I tend to believe in "something" but I am also careful. It's so easy to get carried away and ending up believing your beliefs, thinking you know when you really don't. It procures peace of mind and certainly is helpful going through life. I'm even convinced that it can make "miracles" happen by allowing a flow of some force passing through by being in some kind of receptive state of mind. In every religion you can come across such experiences. I'm just not ready to believe fantasies just to acquire those benefits.

I strongly believe that by allowing false beliefs to enter your mind you get further away from wisdom. I know I'll never know the truth, but I think I have a better chance of grasping a couple of pieces of the puzzle by not polluting my mind with unbelievable fairy tales. How do I know your beliefs are false? :

“The thing is, there will come a time when the grace and mercy opportunity will be withdrawn and replaced with wrath and judgement. And its not about what political position one takes or the good deeds one does, but whether or not one is submitted to the lordship of Christ and repented for their rebellion against him.”

Not even a human court of justice would abide by such principles (well maybe a Taliban court) and God cannot be sub-human. This is an answer that doesn't come from any book and that's what gives it validity.

You might have experienced a "reality in your relationship with God that transcends religious drudgery" , again it happens in every religion. Do you doubt for 1 second that many of the 1.5 Billion muslims have also experienced a reality with God? Don't you see that Man can establish a relationship with God (or so he thinks) whatever the faith?

Last edited: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 1:19:54 PM

Nah, I missed the opportuntity to shell out 40 clams to watch liddel knock the crap (yawn) outta one more guy...i take it you did though? Don't care much for him either, but he's the real deal.

And like you, he too is likely seeking perfection...looks different on him though, right?

Last edited: Monday, August 28, 2006 at 3:39:22 AM

Actually he has not held it as long as Matt Hughes...

But its all the same spiritually speakin.

Right???

I had a revelation this weekend while on my fishing trip. My friend brought up a religious topic and I immediately said, "Nah."

I decided that I don't care if somebody believes or doesn't believe and feel it's worthless to even discuss. If it infringes upon my rights or anothers then yes I'll chat.

Could have been the booze talking. We'll see.

^LOL probably the booze talking but we are social creatures that need to discuss pointlessly.

So I have to put my two cents into this nice little rant.

First off, WOW!!! Boys and girls.

I have put off reading this thread because normally this type degenerate into something that resembles a grade-school fight. (Yes it does...Nuhuh...Uhuh...Nuhuh...etc...). However, this thread surprised me and turned into some very good reading. I was surprised to see some of the ideas expressed and discussed that I have thought about many times..

First some history: My family is fanatically Christian and I grew up as such. However, my scientific mind quickly clashed with the blind faith that my family embraced. It took me some years to finally cut all my ties with the religion as it meant cutting most of the ties with my family as well. During this time I studied many different religions extensively. I read many of the holy books and spoke with many people from all sorts of different faiths. After several years of this kind of study I came to a few conclusions:

A: Believe in the divine is a highly conserved selectable trait.

Unity of belief plays a vital role in human interpersonal relations and binds groups together. Those who do not display and adequate level of the common belief have consistently been killed or banished. Basically this means that for all you who know that there is no valid scientific or logical reason to believe, yet still find yourself seeking for more - it's your genes fault. The evidence is simple and often used for another purpose :) … Why else are so many people religious?

B: Most religions set up an idealistic goal for their members to reach for (i.e. Perfection for ^^^ stink, IM, ST etc..).

This can have both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspects are easy to identify, as they are the basic tenants of a successful society; protected personal property, protection against violence, protection of business dealings, protocol for polite behavior, and childrearing guidelines.
The negative aspects of seeking perfection can be disastrous. The exact definition of perfection as stated by Stink is highly individualized but it is also very malleable. Religions have the ability to bring individual definitions into more conformity. "God is perfect and these are the attributes that make him such" is a very common theme… with differing attributes of course. These can be used to promote intolerance and subjugation of other ideologies, cultures and "races" because they are anti-god. It is such a powerful tool that it can be used to convince individuals to die for the ideas espoused. (Side-note: Nationalism is based on this same principle just replace god with the national ideals).

C: Finally, after much deliberation I have come the conclusion that I am a mutant. I have to be because I have no emotional need for divinity. I am quite content to understand that we evolved from monkeys and that when I die I will cease to exist. Only my selfish genes will continue to live on in my descendents. As for whether or not divinity exists --- don't know, don't care.

Last edited: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 9:16:09 PM

Some of us do!

^ I concur -

Ya, twas. Obviously a guy who's thought about this more than most of us. I also don't have an interest whether divinity exists, nor ufos for that matter. Sorry vash.

LOL,,

^or just waited until very one was finished posting.

Ya, we are just a bunch 'o' monkeys walkin
around with our finger in our nose...

We must be a race of soulless bastard monkeys.

Btw no need to apologize, I am sure u have
never question the existence of ufos.

Last edited: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 7:51:53 PM

^ I just waited until you had reached a level of enlightenment so you could understand my thoughts. ;)

XD

Sure... Pats for pat.

@Stan

To boil it down simply, yes. Now in the Bible there are some passages that offer some wiggle room on this, basically those who haven't heard may still gain entrance into God's kingdom since they've done by nature what God requires, so he may extend his mercy to them and bring them on in. However, I would stress this scenario is for the ignorant, those who've never heard nor have any idea about the Gospel (like those islanders everyone seems to be so concerned about). If someone has been introduced to the Gospel, then they have a responsibility to respond. And the thing is, this isn't my interpretation of Christ's message. Jesus was very clear on the point that access through him was the only way to be reconciled with the Father.

What I was trying to get at was that your notions seem to be based upon what you've decided upon yourself. If there's some attribute of God that goes against your grain, then you dismiss it based upon what you feel God should be like. My idea of God is based on his written revelation to us, which gives us enough information about himself and his plan to respond. Sure, we're not able to fully comprehend God. How can finite beings understand the infinite? But the goal should be to understand what we've been given and that's all we're responsible for.

Christianity IS very distinctive based upon the overall all message, that God is providing a way to be reconciled to himself through his messiah. From my understanding, all other religions have the seeker earning for their own salvation/redemption through whatever rituals or service their god has mandated and perhaps you'll make it or maybe you won't. Jehovah says, you can't do enough to make amends, so just ask me to forgive you and I'll take care of the rest. And it seems to be a common argument to object to the message of the Gospel by claiming we can't really know if its right or not. Well, I doubt there are many tenants of the faith that really push against the grain of most people. There are some good, universal teachings that would benefit man in general if applied appropriately. The rub comes in with Jesus, his deity claims and submission to God. The only event that I can offer to claim that his message was true and valid was his resurrection, which was the only proof he offered at the time. That event is the cornerstone of the Christian faith (another distinction) and is offered as the testimony from God that is it true.

There's nothing wrong with the ideas that are presented in the quote you posted. As I said before, there are many universal truths out there that are shared between the major religions. However, if someone is really seeking God and wanting to know him, he'll eventually respond to the message of the Gospel, since it offers the only way to be sure of one's reconciliation with God.

That's just a wild assertion that's based on your perception of those very ideas and how you filter through them based upon your experience and your culture. I haven't abandoned any of those things, in fact, they guide my life, but instead of relying upon my or your definitions of those things, I look to God's word to define them and attempt to work them out in my life.

And here I was going for martyrdom. Otherwise, why would I keep coming back for more? :) But seriously, I'm not really bound by your definition of anything. Honestly, who are you? Just another decent guy with a lot of opinions, but you really don't speak with any kind of authority that I am bound by. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt that there are any serious tenants of Christianity that you outright reject other than the notion that Jesus is the Christ, the only way to God. But back to the tenants, those are the things I agree with and base my morality upon. And yes, there may be come ideas of human morality that I do disagree with, but only those that are in conflict with God's morality.

@stink - To address the you ideas concerning perfection. I believe perfection is embodied in God and Christ and that no man can attain it, though it remains our goal. My job is to do my best and rely upon God to make up the difference, which is basically the situation he offers.

I tend to disagree with the idea that someone speaking for God is automatically considered crazy. It kind depends on the person and the message they're delivering when compared with God's written word. I believe its still a possibility since I believe in a living, personal God who loves us and wants to interact with us. The trick is being able to discern the true voice and the hacks.

The_V basically sums up most points about religion. I think we need to end this subject for now. The Wise AO has spoken! :)

-AO

Question, What if God isn't the dogmatic tri-omni (omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent) often preached? What if God is, as we are, malleable to the situation, to the individual, to the world as a whole? Would you still be willing to bail on the divine as you have because of perceived errant teaching?

@ IM the malleable divinity is kind of an intriguing concept. It's been batted around a little bit. Basically, " The physical/spiritural nature/characteristics of divinity are based upon the concepts of the worshipers and can evolve and change"

C. S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy is based on this concept. A good read if your ever in the mood for dark fantasy/sci fi.

Thanks for bringing it up phiz.

@Rabban

At one point you say " And the thing is, this isn't my interpretation of Christ's message. Jesus was very clear about ...."

There is clearly a lot of confusion there. You must understand that there is no question that your beliefs are, for the most part, based on an “interpretation” of the Christian scriptures. It is a unambiguous fact that Christians started having disagreements and conflicts very quickly on how to interpret them.

The new testament as we can read it today dates from the end of the 4th century, meaning after the council of Nicaea where, for purely secular reasons and to protect it’s authority, the Church decided what would be a good belief from a heretical belief. Never forget that before these decisions were made, there was no agreement on the interpretation of the scriptures. It is not God, nor Jesus that decided what is a true belief, but an organization of bishops mainly concerned about maintaining power that arbitrarily, or at least very “humanly” set what would become the official tenets of Christianity.

The persecution of various groups with differing beliefs from the now official orthodox Christian church, such as the Cathars or the Pelagians, was entirely based on their diverging understanding from the official interpretation. This is a fact.

In substance, you should never say “Jesus is very clear” because there's always been a fierce debate about it. And you can’t claim to be following God's word either. You can only claim to be following one of several interpretations of a translated book written with a lot of imagery almost 2000 years ago by people who told about a man they haven't known themselves. Chances you’re getting it right are slim.

Thinking that people who don’t agree with you or with the official interpretation of the Christian faith are rejecting God is ludicrous. Most are doing their best to, as you say “understand what they’ve been given”, just like you. Sometimes they live in different parts of the world where there are different scriptures, that are just as beautiful and compelling than the Bible, written by other holy men. No one can expect them to reject their beautiful teachings, anymore than you should be expected to throw away your Bible.

And, you can't dismiss that quote from the Bhagavad Gita as just a nice universal idea:

This is a quote that shows you that other religions have the same "reach the truth through me" that you have in Christianity with Jesus being the way to the Father.

But there’s an achille's heel within your reasoning system, consisting basically of countering any logical or moral argument with : "who are we to know anything". And here’s a part of my prior message that you didn’t respond to:

Your belief that God will deep fry everyone who doesn’t follow your human established religious beliefs is totally absurd, but more importantly it denies the implicit faith in God’s goodness.

Someone told me "Religion has built in protections against assaults by rational thought ", amazing though

Last edited: Sunday, September 03, 2006 at 8:07:31 AM

^u forgot to add (soulless)

THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, AND MOHAMMED IS HIS MESSANGER.
ALLAHUAKBAR

Now I see why you call yourself Lonely Lips !!

SNICKERSCANDYBAR.

It seems mess-angers can only bring jihad messeges

Last edited: Sunday, September 03, 2006 at 9:38:44 AM

People cant understand the message...

@stan

Well, let me start by saying you're going to quicky bury me in church history. There was a time I was up on this sort of thing, but that's been years ago and I've forgotten most of the little that I knew. But I'm do my best to Google a response. ;)

I can appreciate what you're saying about interpretation (and inferred "translation") concerning the Scriptures and yes, there has always been differing opinions about what Christ said and even who Christ was in relation to God and Man. I do disagree on the purpose and intent of the Council of Nicaea as you describe it, but that is your interpretation of the event. Wikipedia offers this view of the First Council of Nicaea which seems to be a bit more neutral than your take. I also found A Brief Introduction to the Canon and Ancient Versions of Scripture which points out that the canon of Scripture was basically confirmed by the council since the majority of early churches had been using them for over a hundred years. Now to imply that the different interpretations of those Scriptures are all equally valid and that only those that benefited the church were adopted is again, a matter of opinion. Paul's writings (included in the canon) addresses the need to keep to the true Gospel and not be lead away by arguments and false teachings and I believe the majority of churches then and mainstream Christianity now hold to those tenants that are the intented message. To say that since there are differing opinions means you can't know which one is the real one is just keeping in line with your reasoning. I'm sure there are varying views on a number of topics in the world, even when it comes to science, and though there are differences, there is still an opinion that is held by the majority that holds the most weight based on the evidence, which is understood to be the "truth". Therefore, Pluto is now considered a dwarf planet even though I'm sure there are still some who insist its still a planet.

I tried looking up the Gita quote you posted, but unfortunately the link doesn't work. I also looked up Chapter 12, but I didn't see the passage you referenced. I think I'd like to read it in context before I commented.

Hmm, I didn't mean to make it seem like this is my position, especially since it seems to be the crux of your argument. I'm the one who feels like he knows for sure while you believe in "something", but you're sure anyone who believes in something definite is wrong. But I was thinking about my position a bit and felt I should redefine what I'm saying. I think we're given enough in order to make a decision on the information given, but there's always going to be a bit a faith mixed in. I mean, I know I'm going to go to work on Tuesday and I pretty much know what I'm going to do while there, but its not absolute and even then there's a bit of faith mixed in. I have no way of knowing what's going to happen to me this afternoon or tomorrow, but I have faith its all going to go according to plan. And sure, I still have those times where I wonder, but there are usually when I've strayed away from the faith as well. But when I'm seeking him, I am stilled and united with him.

You really liked the DaVinci Code , didn't you. ;) I suppose if Jesus had just crossed into the spirit world and floated away, saying do what I've done and you'll achieve the Kingdom of God, then I might have to lean toward the embodiment of God idea. However, if that were the case, then his sacrifice on the cross and his resurrection weren't necessary. You seem to keep wanting to separate what Jesus said in a philosophical/moral manner from what he said concerning sin and atonement. That's what all that "Lamb of God" business was about which is why I don't think just meditating upon God and contemplating is existance is enough to obtain a relationship with him.

The idea of God punishing those who reject him is not exclusive to the Christian faith, but it is a common tenant of Christianity that rejecting Christ and his work in the cross is a refusal to reconcile with God, thus incurring the judgment of "deep frying". But see, you only want half of God, all those "good" things that seem good to you, the love, grace, mercy and so on. I guess in your world, everyone goes to heaven. But I think its also good that God judges and punishes those who reject truth and do what's wrong, establishing justice.

@Rabban

Briefly for now, and I'll answer more later.

Bhagavad Gita excerpts:
Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 12
Bhagavad Gita - closing verses

You sometimes back up the truthfulness of your faith using the beliefs of your faith. This is circular and it is not a good way to reach to others I think. If I were to do the same I could disprove mainstream Christianity in a heart beat, but I understand that other religious beliefs have no value to you, so I don't use that method. Example: The enlightement of the Buddha is enough in and of itself to prove your faith wrong, end of debate. Do you follow?
...

I never said this. How could I, since you know that I think your interpretation is wrong? I only wanted it to be clear that it is a matter of human interpretation and of human opinion. Are we in agreement with that at least?

Do you feel you should go to hell if you happen to be the one who's rejecting the truth by being wrong on the subject?

Last edited: Monday, September 04, 2006 at 1:39:47 AM

Jihad, non of you know what jihad is, all about jihad that is said is BS. Learn islam and then you can tell people what you think jihad is. If you would like an explanation, let me know...we'll talk.

Sounds like a good reason to learn islam.

@stan - Thanks for the corrected links to the Gita. I guess there is one nagging question. Is it really possible to break out of the "ego-cage" and be united with the "Lord of love" by one's own power and meditation? Somehow the idea seems to throw us back to stink's comments concerning the unattainablity of perfection. Anyway...

Yes, I see that I use my faith to support my faith. Sometimes that's all I have, especially when other supports are summarily dismissed.

I know you didn't outright say differing views keeps us from knowing the truth, but that's what I saw as a subtext. Still, I can agree that there is a degree of interpretation and opinion involved, otherwise we wouldn't have varying denominations within the Christian faith or sects in other religions. However, there are some things basic tenants of the Christian faith that are shared by the majority which happen to be the anchors of the faith.

I think its tough to present the sort of proof so many want since we're not able to reinterview the eye witnesses since the events happened about 2000 years ago and those guys are long dead. So we do get back to the interpretation and opinion portion of the discussion where we individually decide if the Gospel of Luke for instance is a honest biography of Jesus' life written to put actual events down on paper or a device created to exert power by the newly formed church. A person's evaluation of Luke does reflect their own disposition toward that account and probably the rest of the Bible as well.

I briefly checked out Easwaran's webpage and noticed that it does promote several ideas from several religions that are worthy of mediation to help achieve a live of higher ideas. I suppose if thinking about it was enough, I suppose it might work, but I don't think that's how it works out in the real world.

Should I go to hell if I reject truth? Sure, but obviously I don't think that's the case. Kinda impossible to answer that one, but then I tend to think I'm also meeting Krishna's requirements in the lifestyle of Christianity so I think I'll slide by. ;)

Last edited: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 1:17:00 PM

^Nice response Rabban.

One comment

As I work with natural selection everyday, I see some corollary’s to this idea. Think about how over past few hundred years the differences in opinion have developed into the thousands of sects of Christianity but the core ideas are the same. Now go back further in time and if you have a difference in opinion about major things like the divinity of Christ and you get Islam and Judaism but many of the core values remain the same. Further back from that and eventually it all goes back to one successful group that believed in god/mystics/divinity/etc. All of the religions of the world have been formed by this process with the highest value core beliefs being strongly conserved in all religions... Hence their similarities.

So what you and Stan are arguing about is pretty much pointless. You will always find some of the same idea's espoused in different religions. It all comes down to the one highly conserved trait that defies logic... Faith. You are either disposed to it or not. The very definition of faith it is not logical but thats okay, its power comes from the individual’s belief. From a societies point of view it doesn't matter what they believe in as long as it compels them to obey vital social rules (On the flip side: Many of the specifics on what is vital social rules is always in debate and is definately worth arguing over).

@the V and Rabban
Very nice post Rabban! You're an exceptional Christian. However:

I think we tend to accept this notion a bit too fast and it sometimes serves the purpose of accrediting any belief. I tend to disagree with that. Just because elements of faith often can't be proven by facts doesn’t mean an illogical belief is acceptable. I think the word “faith” is often used to shroud with respectability what are just blindly accepted beliefs. I think faith is the opposite of blindness. I think faith comes from an accute perception of the world around us, more of an intuitive knowledge, a sharper consciousness of reality. This is what could lead someone to have a greater awareness of God's presence amidst this material world. In a sense the blind believer is much like the atheist, his lack of personal perception of the divine makes him vulnerable to believe anything about God.

I'm still trying to understand these "built-in protections against assaults by rational thought" (I liked that phrase from insolent monkey).

For what it’s worth, reading the gospels, years ago, I was struck by the anti-doctrinal personality of Jesus, his rebuttal of superstition, his sharp remarks in pointing out the absurdity of his opponents, his clever perception of human nature and life. Unfortunately every time I listen to a priest or when I talk to a christian I feel the opposite. It all becomes rigid, uninspired, intolerant, irrational and childish even.

I am convinced the Church has distorted the message of Jesus and reverted back into superstition when deciding in favor of a salvation through faith in particular concepts rather than through personal knowledge of them. The emphasis on what Jesus did instead of what Jesus said started a religion that needs to be cut off from reality in order to stand. I guess it isn’t the first time man turns a beautiful teaching into a sectarian belief. But it is sad to see a great figure such as Jesus turned into a sect founder.

The historicity of the Christian church confirms that the choice of anti-gnosticism was made by an organization of men who then imposed their views by force, destroying temples and villages and killing tens of thousands of people under the pretense of heresy. With such cruelty, wasn't the Church de facto rejecting Jesus message in the worst way possible? Should we really entrust these men to having understood Jesus? Isn't it on the contrary proof that they were light years away from even approaching truth? Are we seriously asked to believe that these men who showed no respect for Jesus teachings, were able to determine God's plan for humanity? This could be a joke if so many people weren't falling for it. The Church was successful however in promoting its human established concepts. They wanted uniformity and uniformity they got. But the conflict between the Gnostics and the orthodox Church lasted for a long time.

Now you have also the gospel of Thomas, widely accepted as a strong back up of the Gnostic interpretation of Jesus message where he is seen as a “vehicle of mystical inspiration” (wikipedia). The recently discovered gospel of Judas puts things into perspective too. There’s always the easy way out consisting of dismissing anything that doesn’t fit as evil or heretic, but is this a serious approach for anyone claiming to do his best to know the truth?

However, It is an absurdity to claim that Gnosticism is a rejection of God. The official doctrine of Christianity is a human creation and it has always been contested. People who reject it are absolutely not rejecting God’s word but the word of some men who have tried to understand the scriptures their way. The Gnostic interpretation stems from a good faith effort to understand what’s available, and there is no sin involved in that. Moreover they have a lot of clues going for them. The new testament is filled with Jesus making references of acquiring salvation by following his teachings and through behavioral requirements generated by genuine love, such as "love your neighbour as yourself" or "If you follow my teachings, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free". Or when Jesus says that sheeps are separated from the goats solely based on a behavior reflecting a universal compassion with no mention whatsoever of any other qualification required. So, where exactly is Jesus saying that no matter how good you are, if you don't believe in a couple of tenets, you'll burn in hell? This is so unlike Jesus (to borrow from the Ghandi's quote).

So you're right Rabban, you won't go to the hot place either way, unless you screw up big time before the finish line.

I don't get this. If goodness is only half of God, what's his other half? Evil? I doubt you mean that. I suppose you mean that God might have to spank us at times, like any good father would when we're behaving like spoiled brats. But when a good father is being tough with his son he still does it for his own good, in order to teach him something. It is still an expression of goodness. I'm sure you're a good father Rabban, and I know you would never punish your son harshly if he refuses to believe that God Rabban kills all people who don't believe that Rabban kills people for trying to understand him ;).

Looking at the world around us, we have to accept that God works sometimes in mysterious ways. But, there has to be some coherence somewhere. If God incites us to genuinely love all people equally, friends or foes alike, shouldn’t he exhibit the same quality? Is it then compatible with a desire for punishing people for…an opinion. Is wrath, anger or revenge compatible with God?

I personally have a hard time with the notion of divine punishment. On one hand it is incompatible with a God devoid of hard feelings, but on the other hand there are some folks out there that we don’t feel they should just get away with what they do. There is in my view only one credible answer to this problem and it is a natural law of consequences. Like if you keep throwing rocks up in the air, one will necessarily fall back on your head.” Live by the sword, die by the sword.” Basically, I am more inclined to believe that our “punishment” is simply to suffer the consequences of living with ourselves.

Last edited: Friday, September 08, 2006 at 9:16:14 PM

Wow. A good hero vs evil, initiation trials, struggle, and self-sacrifice for the greater good is certainly not an original story line. And now we admit that the Jesus story was directed by Alan Smithee. Lol

I can certainly see value in "beliefs" that support being supportive and decent to others. But why the need to have a "god" in the trilogy? Is it because the history of 2000 years ago is so much more mysterious than the possibility of Jedi Knights and the force? Major religions are only better funded fan clubs.

What really makes me smile is the "poor dear" or "you're going straight to hell" reactions when I tell the pious I don't believe in your god. Course that automatically should indicate to them that I don't believe in demons or satan. Whew, that's a load off my mind :)

Is an objective scientific approach so alien just because we don't know all the answers of the universe? Heck, I'll admit we don't even know if there are other universes. Perhaps in a couple billion years we will see the light of others. But first we'll have to figure out a way to survive longer than the dinosaurs did. A lot longer.

May the force be with us.

Faith is one of the "dirtiest" or most dangerous term I know of. But you're right, most assign a positive connotation to faith.

^agreed, to blind faith.

^Gnostic

The new religion.

@ stan

U have done some reading man..

Great stuff dude.

I was going to end this thread with a composition of mine, but I stumbled upon letters written by Thomas Jefferson. Since I was accused of inconsistency for picking and choosing what I liked in the Bible, I thought I'd bring Jefferson along, surely a man of "consistency". Thank you all for this interesting debate which, if it didn't fullfill my curiosity about human nature and how it can build irrational abstract concepts totally separated from reality, it has at least made learn much in searching about scriptures and history.

Thomas Jefferson:
"We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves.

There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dung-hill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages.
....

My aim is to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor.

I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian... When an historian, speaking of a character well known and established on satisfactory testimony, imputes to it things incompatible with that character, we reject them without hesitation, and assent to that only of which we have better evidence.
....

I say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the groveling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They show that there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their hands. Can we be at a loss in separating such materials, and ascribing each to its genuine author?

Last edited: Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 7:47:55 AM

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

--Gandhi

http://xkcd.com/c154.html
panel 5.
Jefferson, not the cleanest of hands on that one.

Last edited: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 5:28:57 PM

I've been thinking about some of this for a few days now and I think I have my thoughts together.

I revisited the Gita quote and I think I still have to go with my original reaction. What Krishna says doesn't seem to be very exclusive concept, that we must seek the supreme. That's what I meant by refering to it as a universal idea, they we're called to seek God. Its my perception that most of the major religions have this call, including Christianity. The thing is, in Christianity we're taught this can only be achieved through Christ as he enables us to approach God by fulfilling God's requirements for holiness. Which, in a nutshell, is what makes Christianity different, that God provides a way for us to meet his requirements and that freely given rather than us trying to work our way into his good graces and work for our salvation. And the thing that gives Jesus' message is validity is not just what he said, but what he did. His miracles and death/resurrection as the things that set him apart from other great men and philosophers, so to discount those things as myth basically transforms Jesus into another great teacher (which is exactly where some people want him to be). And while it is true that he does come out with some really new ideas that took the Judaic Law into new directions and really challenged the establishment and what the religious leaders of the day had made it into, we also have to remember that they didn't crucify him based on a new philosophy, but on his claims that he was the Son of God. His teachings were shaking things up, but many people followed him because of the things he did, which gave credence to all that he was saying. And later on when the apostles are making their cases before the pharisees and other leaders, they would refer to events that they all knew about. So the historical testimony that we're given in the Bible calls us to have faith in the claim that Jesus made, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.", (John 14:6) not whether he existed or did what was recorded about him since those are assumed to be givens by the authors of the different Gospels and letters in the New Testament.

I took a brief look at some gnostic sites and came away with the feeling that its basically mystical reason, looking for the supernatural within the reasoning abilities of men. I also noted that is wasn't introduced with Christianity, but an older philosophy that apparently picked up on some of the concepts of the budding religion. So I would suppose the men of the day felt it was a attempted hijacking of the faith and even some of Paul's letters seem to address some of the ideas they were promoting. But beyond that, there seems to be a need to inject reason into this discussion as if reason were the supreme standard by which all things are tested. That may be the case in science, but trusting in God in not an exercise in reason as far as man's concept of it goes. There are plenty of instances in the Bible where reason would have missed an opportunity to see God do something amazing. Why would anyone march around a city in order to conquer it? Why attack a larger army with only a few hundred men, torches and horns? Since when did putting mud on someone's eyes ever cure blindness? I heard a peacher once say, the only time God talks about reasoning is when he's refering to our sin, in essence saying, "Come on, let's talk this out. It doesn't make sense to do what you're doing when its self destructive and hurts those around you." And at other times, God speaks of doing things that purposely don't make sense to a man just to confound his reasoning, to mock his feeble attempts to stay in control. A supreme being isn't constrained to do things we think they should be done and there are times when a measure of trust needed in the unreasonable in order to attain faith in God.

I generally agree with Stan's evaluation of God's goodness and his need to correct us at times, but that is within the confines of being a member of the family as well. Sure, I correct my son, but an outside gets the hammer. So it is with God, he nutures and corrects those who are his, but those who continually reject him and his authority will eventually get the fire. And when that eventually happens, it will be just as good and right as those who enter heaven by God's grace.

You’re right the Gita quote isn’t an exclusive concept. Several holy men have made use of this “reach the truth through me” metaphor, obviously not meaning their own individual person but the nature of their being. So you agree that this is a universal concept while maintaining that the truth can only be reached through Jesus. This would be very hard to reconcile if I didn’t know better and didn’t try my best to get into your thinking process. Since you start with the assumption that only Jesus is real, it doesn’t matter what others have said and how similar their teachings can be to Jesus, in your mind they’re all impostors.

Indeed if what we’re trying to prove is a given it doesn’t take long.

Jesus making miracles and resurrecting seems to the basis of your exclusive belief. But here again, reports of miracles in Hinduism are absolutely countless. From the ancient Vedas to historical Yogis, miracles such as healings, resurrections and body disappearances are so common in Indian religious tradition that it doesn’t even deserve a lot of attention. It seems obvious for a Hindu that a person having reached the truth and the state of Godliness is capable of unleashing unknown powers that appear supernatural to the rest of us. As an example here’s a biography of Raghavendra Swami, a yogi from the 17th century:

Raghavendra (Miracles + The last speech paragraphs)

On a personal note, I find it unhealthy to place too much importance on miracles. Yes it shows an ability to perform prowess and it can be amazing. I am also puzzled at the notion of anti-matter, dark energy and string theory, but it all remains entertainment to me. It doesn’t even come close to “love your neighbor like yourself”, which is the very core of Jesus teachings. The unlimited compassion and selfless nature that it implies deserves much more respect and attention than resurrecting people. And this is the reason why I admire much more Jesus for his teachings than for his miracles.

I’ll go even further and say that the need for miracles to support one’s faith only proves the lack of it. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, there’s a world of difference between faith and blind belief. In fact they are true opposites and it confirms again the connection between atheism and blind faith leading to fundamentalism. Miracles might turn atheists into blind believers but it will not give them real faith. Miracles do not open men’s hearts or make them more receptive to the truth, it can only make them superstitious.

…

Faith and reason

Coincidently this was the subject of the recent Pope’s lecture which drew the ire – again - of the Muslim world. That lecture was about the tendency to exclude the question of God from reason, but it touched on the reverse as well, that is the question of God excluding reason.

I first want to clear up some confusion. I never said that “reason” is the only human ability that is required to access the truth. It is one thing to argue that reason may not always be sufficient, nor necessary but it certainly does not infer that it is permissible to be unreasonable. The distinction is critical.

Excerpts from the Pope Benedict XVI citing a dialogue between a Byzantine Emperor and a Persian scholar:

"The Emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. God is not pleased by blood and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. For the Emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not constrained by any of our principles, including rationality."

So here we are Rabban. You explained to me several times that we should not bound God’s will by human reason. Here’s the decisive question:
Is fundamentalist Christianity similar to Islam then?

If YES, then I wish you good luck in finding the truth within the realm of irrationality. For me it is clear however, God can’t be God if he’s unreasonable, because if he is unreasonable then he has some kind of deficiency or imperfection. Imperfection is incompatible with his divine nature. He can’t transcend reason because perfect reason is also integral to his nature and God can’t be untrue to himself.

If NO, then I think you'll have no choice but to make adjustments to the last paragraph of your last post. For it is extremely unreasonable to claim that God can endlessly punish his sons for refusing to believe an organized religion concept that so contradicts their father's nature. If anything, it can be construed as a sign of true faith in God's goodness and intelligence and might even deserve a reward.

Last edited: Friday, September 22, 2006 at 1:29:37 PM

Geez my attention spand is to short to read the complete logical statement stan is try to make but unlike stan some people are all into religon and belifes and some are not. For exsample kids whoa re baptized at birth don't really want to go to church every day for the rest of thier lives but they do it. Because they have to respect thier parents. Later in thier life they will grow into strongly beliving in thier faith as adult but as kids they don't make arguments about how unrespectfull some people are to other people faith its kinda like they don't reaally care at times. Yet when they are grwon and strongly belive are outraged and for some strange reason its like a crime against God to not exactly belive in the same faith to other people but still thier are people out thier who are gonna mock other faith and thier are people who aren't.

Big Papa, you've hit dead center with your simple ways.

I obviously didn't start this thread to have people switch faiths. I am well aware of the fact that when someone adheres to a religion, the symbols of that faith become identified with his feelings and concept of God. The founding Holy figure, the church or temple, the imagery, the music, the perfume, and the rituals all become symbiotic with the person's spiritual frame of mind. With time, their mere presence calls the follower to his spiritual senses. This is why Buddhism does not encourage people to switch faith and become Buddhists, because they understand people's attachment to their own symbols of faith.

Unfortunately, very often superstition and irrational beliefs enter the sphere of organized religion. And there can be no respect for irrationality, because this is the root of all evil in the sense that if you take away God's common sense, you glorify ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance and hatred.

So yes..."for some strange reason its like a crime against God to not exactly believe in the same faith.. ". It doesn't make any sense and you don't have to be Einstein to know this is a false belief. Fortunately, for most people falsity reveals itself well before the full truth is known.

Here are 2 traps where devotees can make serious mistakes and turn their religion into a dangerous dead-end street:
- Going beyond pure reason and logic and appealing to other senses to grasp the sacred is fine. But it can't be a justification to believe the unreasonable.
- Calling "faith" the trust in God for whom there can be no material proof is fine. But it can't be a justification to blindly believe concepts without understanding them.

Last edited: Friday, September 22, 2006 at 10:55:28 AM

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." Voltaire

I knew I should of restated that phrase

Its not a crime againts any god
its just that people don't like it when other well for example (not in amean way) Christen and Catholics any way say my dad is Catholic and his friend is christen and all of the sudden their enemys of the greatest kind
why, why dose it have to be like that and I've seen things like that happen

Excuse me if im speaking out of term

Last edited: Monday, September 25, 2006 at 5:32:42 PM

Triv

I am far from being an expert on Islam. I have only read bits of the Koran and several books about it. I still came away with the notion that it is probably the most schizophrenic religion of all. Muhammad himself appears to have been a very insightful man of peace while becoming a ruthless warrior and a notorious womanizer. I don’t know what to make of it. (maybe you can research this and explain that duality)

But it is true that I have read some very respectful verses about women in the Koran, such as stating that women and men are made from the same divine essence and are fully equal. Then there is that passage about needing for witnesses in a trial either 2 men or 1 man and 2 women, inferring that women are worth only half that of men.

All in all, I think whoever Muhammad was, if more “reason” was applied to Islam it could be a good religion. But this is not the path that was taken, even though for a few centuries bets were still open.

With the early conquest of vast lands around the Mediterranean, the Muslim world ended up integrating the Byzantine empire and the Greco-roman culture, and while their rule was far from peaceful, the Califes appropriated all they could make use of in order to affirm the supremacy of Islam. This led to a somewhat intellectual dynamism in the arts and sciences, as they were at the crossroads between Europe and Asia and had already been exposed to the rich heritage of Indian culture until then. Avicenne, Maimonides and Averroes are just some of the better known thinkers that had an influence on Islam at the time.

This golden age of Islam, considered to be from VIII to XI century benefited extensively from the Greek philosophy that they called “falsafa” and several branches sprung out that interpreted the Coran with discernment and reason and some form of mysticism, like the Mutazilite, corresponding to the early current of Gnosticism that appeared with Christianity. And just like what happened with Christianity the rigorous and dogmatic views on the Koran imposed itself and it was then forbidden to interpret the Koran with foreign philosophies. This sealed the fate of Islam and of the whole Arab culture up until now. Intellectual dynamism took a dive and enshrined the Muslim world in a middle-ages outlook on society.

Very few Islamic groups advocate a tolerant and gnostic view with the use of reason on the Koran nowadays, at the notable exception of Sufism, which is considered heretic by the vast majority of Imams.

The Mulims today have a religious view that is very similar to Christians. They both rejected the path of “devotion" with a direct experience of the teachings, for the adoption of the path of “submission” with blind belief in superstition.

But while their intellectual behavior on the divine is identical, Christianity is much less aggressive, which makes it more acceptable. And the difference is at the root, with their respective founders. When Christians mess up they do it in spite of the teachings of Jesus who has never condoned violence. But for a Muslim, going back to the central figure of the Koran, he can find support for slaying the infidels, or implementing sharia, since Muhammed was a conqueror and intended to rule Caesar’s world as well as God’s.

Last edited: Monday, October 02, 2006 at 7:43:58 AM

Intresting post Stan, as the earlier ones.

Jesus never condoned violence, because violence was the norm of his time. He wanted to appear as different. Therefore he the way he acted... Defying the rulers of the time... And pissing them off. Speaking the God word is bigger than the word of authority.

John 2:15

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen: and poured out the changers'money, and overthrew the tables;

Not quite the pacifist that is normally presented. This is the main justification for many of the horrendous things that have been done in the name of Christ. The peaceful loving one is a much more modern concept.

Last edited: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 9:07:05 PM

Ah yeah that is true, but I see that John 2:15 example more as resistance towards authority than act of violence. No one was physically hurt, wounded or killed, I believe, but I see your point. :)

There's no need for everyone to copy and paste the Bible -_-

I can't help but think is has all been an exercise in CYA. Belief in God is nice and I'm a pretty good person, so surely I'll get his stamp of approval on me and what I did. That may be a valid philosophy, but its not Christianity.

I read an interesting bit from a devotional yesterday that I think should be shared here.

Christianity teaches that man is totally lost without God and can not be reconciled to God except through a mediator, Jesus Christ. As a result of that reconciliation, we're to display the work of God in our lives through service to God and our fellow man, but any hopes of earning our salvation is misguided since we all fail to meet God's standards because of our basic nature and we must rely upon his grace and mercy to be saved. Deviating from that simple plan is easy, but its another gospel.

Be that as it may, I don't think its unreasonable to believe that your chosen faith is the correct faith and that desiring people to join up is a good thing. How those wishes and desires are expressed are often the problem, but if you don't think your faith is correct or that its teachings are true, then why bother at all? Either get into a faith that you can hold to or chuck it all because you're only playing a game.

Anyway, that's a wrap for me in this thread.

What is this? This time I'll be harsh and you deserve it. Sorry!

Are you even reading my posts before responding? Is this a total disdain for the interlocutor just as you express arrogance towards other religions of the world, without even knowing about them? Don't ridicule other religions by willingly misrepresenting them:

If that's your idea of other people's faith, you better start informing yourself a bit more before expressing such contempt for others. I have debated the validity of real Christian concepts, not those that I incorrectly assigned to it.

Your quote from your devotional link is dumb, and it serves no other purpose than to protect believers from a reasonable criticism of the Church. I won't even waste my time dismantling it, it's just too obvious. And you know full well I can quote Jesus to annihilate this idiotic misinterpretation, disingenuously backed up by John 2.25 taken out of context.

All you're doing in your last post is proving to yourself that your ideas are right by using your arbitrary concepts as givens. It has no value. Anything, literally anything can be justified this way. I guess we're just all lucky you weren't born in a fundamentalist Muslim family, you'd probably be in a training camp somewhere plotting some horrendous act in the name of God, scriptures backing you up for sure, can't go wrong that way!

You cherry pick your Holy men (only Jesus is right, all others are impostors), your Gospels (Where's Thomas? Non-biased scholars give it as much validity as Mark's), your science (no evolution, when not one non-Christian scientist doubts it. Then again it only took 300 years after Copernicus for the Church to reluctantly admit the Earth revolved around the Sun) and your verses in the Bible just to believe a man-made concept. Where's the consistency there, except a perpetual stubbornness to believe in a fantasy? If you select your stars in the sky you can draw anything you like.

Before you engage in trying to convert people to your primitive religious ideas, based on exclusivity and superstition, you would do well to get a glimpse of the depth of spiritually more advanced religions. Read the Upanishads and the Gita and maybe you'll realize that knowledge unites when ignorance divides.

" When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." Albert Einstein

"When I read the Upanishads, I found a profundity of world view that made my Christianity seem like third grade." Huston Smith

"Perhaps in return for conquest, arrogance and spoliation, India will teach us the tolerance and gentleness of the mature mind, the quiet content of the unacquisitive soul, the calm of the understanding spirit, and a unifying, a pacifying love for all living things." Will Durant

"Hinduism is wholly free from the strange obsession of some faiths that the acceptance of a particular religious metaphysics is necessary for salvation, and non-acceptance thereof is a heinous sin meriting eternal punishment in hell." Radhakrishan

Your goodbye to this thread should have been more like this:
"I don't have the answers to the points you raise, except that I believe in what I believe, and I can't justify it except by believing in my beliefs" -
And if it sounds too much like obscurantism, at least it has the merit to be honest.

Last edited: Friday, October 06, 2006 at 4:42:00 PM

Well Stan, is there a particular religion you'd like for me to look into? So far you've been rather elusive and haven't really claimed any system for yourself, but there must be something since you're so upset about it. Its easy for you to pick and criticize me, but I don't really have anything to work with other than "something" and an apparent interest in Eastern religions.

Also, you claimed to be open, but you're really not. Your goal seems to be to debunk Christianity and show me where I'm wrong. How can you say that I can't know, but you seem to be pretty sure of what you know.

And then the outlandish representations and characterizations that you've been laying on pretty thick lately (here and elsewhere) aimed at me. Well, they're just plain silly and baseless, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to dig myself out of a hole you've pushed me into. For someone who claims to be so rational, you're getting hysterical.

I haven’t claimed any system for myself because it is irrelevant. I don’t belong to any organization that aims toward imposing or converting the world to a given set of unintelligible beliefs. I can accept any ideas on the World or God if they have coherence and come from a genuine point of view, even if I don’t agree with it. But I can’t accept blind beliefs because it is worthless and can only lead to fanaticism. And I know that this is where we disagree. For you, Man should renounce using his mental abilities in order to find God because he isn't smart enough. For me, Man should rather strive to sharpen his mind if he is to achieve that goal.

The problem with your theory is that it glorifies stupidity and prevents discernment. How can you then blame people of other faith for doing the exact same thing you’re doing? They apply the very same concept that guides you, and they get blamed for it. Oh they picked the wrong book! Dang! How would they know? They too had to surrender their minds and accept without questioning, just as they were told. “There’s no God but Allah and Muhammad is he’s prophet” , damn Muslims, how could they reject this tenet of Islam while accepting it without questioning at the same time? Enough….would you all one day stop taking God for a retard? There’s no salvation in idiocy and blindness. We have no choice but to improve our feeble minds.

Do I want you to look into something else than Christianity? Yes and No. Christianity has a lot of assets and could be a beautiful religion. It has a truly divine central figure in Jesus and even the little episodes from the synoptic Gospels are enough to convey a deep sense of truth that can be deeply inspiring. It has amazing devotional structures as cathedrals and churches, great symbolisms in iconography or in the music and chorus that do appeal to the soul.

Unfortunately it turns most intelligent people away from it because a group of men institutionalized idiotic, primitive and irrational concepts at the core of the religion. I have tried to show you where the tenets of Christianity are self-delusive using reason alone, because I wanted to avoid a sterile belief against belief sparring.

I must admit that posting on this thread revived my interest in religion. Not that it has ever left me, but I can spend a long time without directly injecting doses of scriptures into my life. And in a way I find it beneficial, as it allows for some ideas to settle in, be digested and incorporated in me, while rejecting the ones that I might not yet be ready for. I found that putting down the scriptures for a while allows me to touch base with myself because being constantly immersed in high religious ideas tends to make someone think outside of himself. Anyway, during the last couple of months, I have researched a lot of infos and did a lot of reading about Christianity. I found the Christian sites trying to debunk other religions, or going against science appalling and an insult to Mankind, with a level of reasoning that I wouldn't even qualify as childish for I have kids in high esteem.

Overall, it has all increased my affection and respect for Eastern religions which all feel like a heaven of truth, peace, intelligence, tolerance, wisdom and profoundly divine perception as opposed to Christianity’s sectarianism, shallow concepts, rigidity, disrespect for holy men and extreme void in the apprehension of divinity.

As for my frustration with you, it comes from your inability or unwillingness to respond to the points I raise in my posts, preferring to simply restate ad-eternam the dogmas of your faith. But it shouldn’t surprise anyone since these beliefs are impossible to understand for being so antithetical to God. It is unfortunate that you didn't see fit to respond to my remarks on Benedict XVI lecture and the question I addressed to you on that subject.

I also would never push anyone in the hole you fell in and locked yourself up into. I have merely attempted to show you a picture of that hole from above the ground. It has a nice wall paper all around aiming at reinventing the world, but it’s not God’s world.

Finally:

I must have explained this half a dozen times already. Are you giving me the run around trying to increase my frustration in debating irrationality?
........

"I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity. I cannot conceive Jesus, if he was living in flesh in our midst, approving of modern Christian organizations, public worship, or ministry." Gandhi

Last edited: Monday, October 09, 2006 at 11:18:04 AM

Hmmmm.