Question About Religion

[Rogue Nine]

I said loosely. In the Bible I have, I must have read from the notes on the bottom. I have scripture and notations. Not a big-big deal.

Sure it is. When you're arguing on a topic, you want to make your premises and reasonings as clear and as accurate as possible, so as to give the other side less material to attempt to rebut your argument with. The less accurate your information is, the less likely your stance is going to be taken seriously. It's Basic Debate 101: Always make sure you back up your words with factual evidence wherever possible. If you don't, you're just making it easier for your opposition to pidgeonhole you.

 

Their reunion (Drawing from memory, so don't shoot me. At least I am attempting to do so.):

Look for the passage where Jesus gets his feet washed with the tears and hair of a sinner.

Ah, you're talking about that woman. The Gospels are not quite all-together on her identity. In the Gospel of John (which, coincidentally, is the only place in the Gospels where the stone episode that was previously mentioned is recorded), it takes place in the house of Lazarus and this woman is apparently Mary, the sister of Lazarus. In the Gospel of Luke, it takes place in a Pharisee's home and is carried out by a woman identified only as "one who led a sinful life." In the Gospel of Mark, it takes place in Simon the Leper's home and she is identified as simply a woman with a jar of perfume. And finally, the Gospel of Matthew is basically the same account as that of Mark's.

 

So what does this all mean. Well, for starters, none of those Scripture references mention to the woman who was to be stoned as being the same one who washed the feet of Jesus, not even John's Gospel. As such, I really have no idea where you're trying to go with this, since I think you've got the facts a little screwy. If you're reading from a Life Application Bible or some other copy with footnotes or notations and such, those notes are not part of the Bible proper, and as such, any inferences they may come up with cannot be taken as canon. Sure, it's interesting conjecture to think that the woman who was to be stoned paid Jesus back by washing his feet. But unless there is definitive proof, it remains just that, conjecture. And I don't know what other source you've got to look to other than the Good Book itself.

 

Oh and for future reference, BibleGateway is ftw.

[Totenkopf]

The version of the stoning I always heard was that Jesus merely challenged the crowd by suggesting that if anyone there was without sin, he should cast the first stone. As everyone eventually walked away, there was only Jesus and the whore. He basically asked her if anyone was left to condemn her. She said no and he said He wasn't going to either, that she should go and sin no more. Some people use this story to say that Jesus condemns the policy of capital punishment. Either way, it does demonstrate that Jesus' disposition was a merciful and forgiving one, which I believe was probably Mac's position in the first place.

[JediKnight707]

whore.

 

That's a little condescending, don't you think?

 

Sure it is. When you're arguing on a topic, you want to make your premises and reasonings as clear and as accurate as possible, so as to give the other side less material to attempt to rebut your argument with. The less accurate your information is, the less likely your stance is going to be taken seriously. It's Basic Debate 101: Always make sure you back up your words with factual evidence wherever possible. If you don't, you're just making it easier for your opposition to pidgeonhole you.

 

True, but he did say loosely, indicating--at least in my mind--that he was quoting from memory, and that it probably isn't exact.

[Jae Onasi]

Evil acts have been done by Christians, faith aside. Crusaders sacked Constantinople. Supposed witches were burned at the stake. Whole libraries of books in South America were burned in the name of Christianity. Even now, many pro-Christians are seeking to ban abortion. I'm not trying to bash your faith, but I have yet to see that it can make someone a more moral person simply because it promises a reward or a punishment in the afterlife. That's just plain materialistic.

Ah, we're talking about 2 different things in the moral realm.

You're asking about an individual's morals, and I'm talking about an entire frame of reference--on the broad scale, not the individual.

What can an atheist use as a moral frame of reference when there is no objective basis outside oneself? If I said that all men should only wear scanty Tarzan loincloths because it would enhance their attractiveness, thus benefitting our species, who's right--you (assuming you don't want to wear scanty loincloths all the time) or me? If I want to express my artistic freedom by running around nude in public (which actually would be far more amusing than anything else ), why am I not right?

 

Punishment/reward--I don't know what God has planned for heaven other than what's delineated in Revelation. I think hell will be a separation from that love, and heaven will mean being present with love directly.

 

From God's perspective, I'm not all that better than the serial ax murderer down the street--I just do less direct damage to the people around me. My good works may be miles high compared to Jack the Ripper. However, when you're talking about having to bridge a gap light-years wide in the relationship with God, the difference between my miles of good works and Jack's inches of good works is suddenly miniscule in comparison.

 

To answer the earlier question on 'does He pick just some people to save?' No, he wants everyone as one of His children. It's like we're all underwater about to drown, and He's offering each of us a scuba tank with air in it--but _we_ have to accept the tank--He won't force anyone to take it. You can't force someone to accept love.

 

I don't choose to be more moral/be a Christian because I want some 'fire insurance'. Some may view it that way, and I imagine God has something in mind for dealing with all that when the time comes, but it's not specified in the Bible in any significant degree because it doesn't have tremendous relevance for functioning here on earth. I choose to follow His rules because a. I want to honor the sacrifice and gift of Christ, b. they make me a better person here on earth c. they help me make life better for the people around me and d. He wants a relationship with me. That's not saying the non-religious can't achieve b and c, btw. I just think it's a lot easier when there's an objective code to live by.

 

Oh Jae, you've ignored the point I made about God affecting every single biological thing.

God can't use natural laws? He made them, after all. What holds an atom together--shouldn't the protons in the nucleus fly apart because they hold the same charge? These aren't following natural law. What caused the genesis of life? What caused the universe? When you bring it down to the singularity that just preceded the Big Bang, the laws of science break down.

The fact that all of us are here despite the essentially zero probability of a cell developing in the primordial soup (see post above on the math thing) a zillion years ago and the incredibly intricate design, defying the law of entropy, shows an outside Designer. Can all the pieces of a computer come together on their own? No. Why would we then assume that humans, who are far more complex than computers, come together without some kind of guiding force?

 

Evil acts--will continue to be made by people, Christian or not. We may have forgiveness from God, but we're still human, and we're still going to screw up. All we can do when we do screw up is ask for forgiveness from both God and the person we hurt, make restitution, and go on with life.

 

How does God allow evil and suffering to exist--I'm drawing most of this material from the book "Cries of the Heart" by Dr. Ravi Zacharias--mainly because he says it far more articulately than I can. Most of the material is from his 'postscript to chapter 3' section, pp 210-218 and is more fleshed out than what I have here--while a good portion of this is actually his words, I'm hitting the highlights and condensing, and if there's confusion, it's probably because I've condensed those arguments poorly. Bear with me here--the argument needs to be taken in its entirety in order to be fully understood. You may miss the entire point if you take out a small piece to debate, so I ask you please to read the whole thing first before responding. In fact, I had to read it a couple times before I understood not just the main points but also the subpoints because he's that deep of a thinker. I've tried to keep it simple where I could, but some of his arguments can only be presented the way he's written them to keep the proper context, and he's very much the intellectual's intellectual.

 

The thesis as I understand atheists believe: Because evil exists, God cannot exist.

I'm going to present it as Zacharias does--the philosophical and moral dimensions first, and then apply it to our reality.

 

A philosophical point--

The categories of 'good' and 'evil' only exist if there is an absolute moral law.

An absolute moral law exists only if God exists. If one argues that we do not see a moral law in existance, there still is the assumption that we have the ability to decide whether or not a moral law exists. We can't deny a moral frame of reference without invoking a moral absolute, Zacharias asserts. If we accept that there is evil in the world, then God is not expendable.

 

A moral point--

How is God sovereign over a world in which realities exist that would be deemed evil if authorized by us--I'll address this in steps as Zacharias delineates them.

 

First--the connection between God's character and His relation to moral law.

Is the moral law by which each of us chooses to live something that we have arbitrarily chosen in order to exercise our power, or does it exist outside, or over and above us?

 

If we have arbitrarily chosen it, then we have no right to condemn the moral law by which anyone else operates--including God. If this moral law stands over and above us, how do we determine where it comes from? For the Christian, the answer given in the Bible implicitly is that the moral law that calls for the sanctity of every life is given to us by God.

 

Next--if moral law haunts us and moral law comes from God, is it decreed by Him, or is He also subject to it--again, arbitrary or ultimate?

Now, as we answer this question, a vital point must be made between us humans, as finite creatures, and God, an infinite, omnipotent being. The two choices of whether a law is arbitrary or ultimate exist only for us. Our finitude cannot allow for other possibilities, and our character cannot be the source of absolutes--humans cannot be the measure of things. If they are, we must ask ourselves who is the person who is the ultimate measure? Mother Theresa? Gandhi? Hitler? Stalin? Bush? Mao? We know from our history and experience that humanity has the great capacity to do evil. Millions have been killed and brutalized in the name of both religious and atheistic ideologies. We can hardly trust a human as the ultimate measure.

However, with God the law is not arbitrary, and it is not over Him. It is rooted in His character which is perfect and unchanging. He alone eternally and perfectly exists, as Zacharias states. The reason for His existence is in Himself, and so is the moral law.

 

God does not make a misjudgment or commit acts which are ill-willed or destructive to what is good. Only that which is pure and righteous is intrinsic to God Himself. So, no tragedy can be interpreted in terms of arbitrary or ultimate, but rather from within the character of the one who is all good and all powerful.

 

Existential reality--let's discuss now what happens when we have a tragedy or atrocity, and that someone dies--say, a child. There are four 'victims' in that event.

 

First--the child. In God's purview, is the death of a child really an act without recovery? If God is the giver of life, then He has the power to restore it to the one who has 'lost' it. We as humans perceive it as a loss, but God does not perceive it that way, and for the one who knows Him, the recovery is even greater than the life lived here on earth. There may be a finality to earthly existence, but not to existence itself. The life that is 'lost' is not lost when it's in the hands of the one who made it and sustains it in the first place.

 

Second--the person who knows God and now must survive the loss of that loved one. It is indeed a painful experience. For those of us who are believers, however, God comforts us and heals us--the famous Psalm 23 is only one example of many passages that describe God's interaction with His people after a loss. God not only gives inner healing and sustenance, but the promise that those who have been separated will meet again. Relationships made in God never die.

 

Third--the skeptic who stands by and condemns the act as evil or wicked. Two things follow from this. The first is the contradiction previously established--the one who makes such a condemnation has no basis for a moral law by which the condemnation is made. Mindless evolution does not provide a moral basis for this philosophical castigation. In fact, if we are indeed the random product of evolution, then aggression and domination are in themselves good things--they assure survival of the fittest.

 

Nevertheless, pain and death are evils we must live through, and it's here that a second important consideration challenges the skeptic. Evil always has a purpose, and it has to be defined in terms of this purpose. How does anything exist without first establishing a purpose? Destruction is a meaningless term without purpose. God's purpose for us is that we live for Him who is the source of our being and who has planted love in our hearts. When we violate that purpose, the greater evil is not death or suffering. Life can be restored. The greater evil is choosing to separate ourselves from God and live in a manner contrary to His purpose. At the heart of evil is autonomy--self-love and self-law. Self-law will always lead to a loss of law and self-love to the loss of love. The skeptic's criticism of evil is logically and existentially self-defeating.

 

The fourth 'victim'--the questioner who asks "How can God be sovereign over life, but we are not given the same right to take a life?" Neither our character nor our capacity give us the right to have authority over life's sanctity. God always acts in character and with purity and will never do wrong. We cannot take that same prerogative because we neither have the character to make the right choices 100% of the time, nor do we have the power to restore life. God can allow 'bad things' to happen because He can restore life through these tragedies and reveal the destructiveness of sin through tragedies. He sees humanity through the lens of infinity, His reason is pure and He is able to give strength to those who seek His comfort.

 

We humans cannot claim this absoluteness, because our characters are not pure and our reasoning may be flawed due to wrong information and wrong motives. Our proneness to error makes it clear that the tragedies and atrocities we see should make us flee to God and realize just how deceitful the human mind is. We need the wisdom and character that He can provide.

 

An additional thought to this is the question "Is this the best of all possible worlds God could have made?" There are only 4 possible worlds that God could have made that scholars have discussed.

1. No creation of this world--would it not have been better for God to create no world than this one with good and evil?

2. A world where only good would have been chosen--a robotic world where love is forced--and a forced love is no love at all.

3. A world where there is no such thing as good and evil--an amoral world

4. The world we live in--where good and evil exist along with the possibility of choosing either.

 

Again, as soon as we introduce the question of what would have been better, we again invoke an absolute point of reference, and that we can only introduce if God exists. Of these 4 worlds, the last is the only one where love is genuinely possible. Love is the supreme ethic that we know of, and where love is possible, freedom and the possibility of suffering accompany it. Where love is possible, pain is also possible. God alone is the absolute expression of love that is never separated from holiness. It's when we turn our backs on Him that we lose the source of defining love, live with the pain of unholiness, and so suffering remains an enigma and leaves us as imperfect humans searching for moral law and crying out for an answer that can satisfy our finite minds. There is no good answer apart from Him, apart from His infinite nature, apart from His sovereignty over life, apart from His love and His purity. Every other answer to the problem of pain not only fails to satisfy, it fails to even justify the question.

[Rogue Nine]

Just so you know, a good amount of Jewish people believe in Jesus and God. You just don't hear about it alot.

Really. Define 'believe in' for me, please. And I'd like to know where you've heard that they do, if you don't mind.

 

Islamic's version of the Old Testiment is flawed. They use it to wage war, which is an ultimate contridiction to what Christianity and Jewish doctrine teaches.

Oh really. So all Muslims read the Koran and say, "oh, let's go wage war, because it lets us"?

 

Not once have you used Bible doctrine to make your case; therfore, I consider you as an instigator who wants attention.

The same could be said for you. Not once have you quoted the Bible to back up a claim you have made.

 

If you want to make an argument, I would use scripture, and I would utilize the book in question: The Bible.

Practice what you preach.

 

There are futher differences in Prodistan, Born Again, etc... After the Reformation (Reinassance Period), Martin Luther helped fracture the Catholic Church. Hense - Prodistan, Born Again, etc...

'Prodistan'? I hope you mean 'Protestant', because I haven't a clue what 'Prodistan' is. Sounds like a former Soviet republic.

 

Be very careful in your choice of words. Use evidence to backup your disbelief, so you don't come off antisematic.

Be very careful in your choice of words. Use evidence to back up your belief, so you don't come off as a fanatic.

 

You really need to be specific.

As do you. If you are to hold your opposition to high standards of specificity, it is only fair that you hold yourself to the same standards and not rely on abstract generalizations and stuff you remember off the top of your head.

 

MacLeodGR, let me make it clear to you: I am not out to get you. I myself am Christian and have my own beliefs on faith and God. I just think that you need to stop going into debates half-cocked. You're speaking from your heart, which is good, because it demonstrates the passion and the zeal you have for your faith. But it is also bad because it is making you irrational and causing you to put up arguments that are not fully thought out. You constantly tell people to be careful and specific with what they say and ask, when you yourself do not give second thought to nature and specificity of what you type. You have valid points based off of your faith. I am simply asking you to better expound on them, because they are far too easy to pigeonhole.

[Jae Onasi]

Really. Define 'believe in' for me, please. And I'd like to know where you've heard that they do, if you don't mind.

 

Messianic Jews follow Judaism but also acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. The Jews for Jesus website discusses this. There may be other sites as well, this just happens to be the group that I know about.

[Emperor Devon]

You're asking about an individual's morals, and I'm talking about an entire frame of reference--on the broad scale, not the individual.

 

Then explain the widespread and terrible views of the Church back in the Middle Ages.

 

What can an atheist use as a moral frame of reference when there is no objective basis outside oneself?

 

There is also society.

 

If I said that all men should only wear scanty Tarzan loincloths because it would enhance their attractiveness, thus benefitting our species, who's right--you (assuming you don't want to wear scanty loincloths all the time) or me?

 

Tell that to the men up in Alaska.

 

If I want to express my artistic freedom by running around nude in public (which actually would be far more amusing than anything else ), why am I not right?

 

It wouldn't feel very good for starters.

 

Punishment/reward--I don't know what God has planned for heaven other than what's delineated in Revelation. I think hell will be a separation from that love, and heaven will mean being present with love directly.

 

You've made earlier claims that pretty much everyone goes to heaven once they die. Why exactly is there a Hell, then?

 

However, when you're talking about having to bridge a gap light-years wide in the relationship with God, the difference between my miles of good works and Jack's inches of good works is suddenly miniscule in comparison.

 

That is a poor system, then. Shouldn't people be rewarded for trying to the best of their ability? If a blind cripple, for instance, tried to do everything in his power to improve the world around him, shouldn't that be rewarded in the end? If he was God, he would have done wonders. Should not intent be rewarded?

 

To answer the earlier question on 'does He pick just some people to save?' No, he wants everyone as one of His children. It's like we're all underwater about to drown, and He's offering each of us a scuba tank with air in it--but _we_ have to accept the tank--He won't force anyone to take it. You can't force someone to accept love.

 

That still doesn't explain why some people die and others live. You seem to be addressing why some people are religious or not.

 

b. they make me a better person here on earth c. they help me make life better for the people around me

 

Please elaborate.

 

I just think it's a lot easier when there's an objective code to live by.

 

Explain this objective code. It's easy to tell what's right and what isn't. How does believing in a higher power than us change that?

 

Why would we then assume that humans, who are far more complex than computers, come together without some kind of guiding force?

 

We have. It's called evolution.

 

I'm going to present it as Zacharias does--the philosophical and moral dimensions first, and then apply it to our reality. {snip}

 

Interesting.

[Luke.Skywalker]

Is it right to kill some one?

Looking in the Bible can help answer questions. Even for the non-believers.

Ecclesiastes 3:1 - To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

Ecclesiastes 3:3 - A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

 

To kill some one, if by justified reasons such as defence, is not the same as murder. To murder some one is to do out of hate and anger, or revenge. God says not to murder.

 

The seventh of the Ten Commandments says Thou shall not kill. I beleive this was set so that man would not be killing over every issue, or for pleisure. I don't beleive God would just want us to stand and do nothing if some one tried to kill us.

 

Also God did command the killing of others such as David. He had told David to kill Golieth. I will have to find it again but God did bring life to a valley of dry bones for the use of an army.

 

To kill some one in self defence, to protect some one else from being killed, and to prevent the death of hundreds is justifiable. To kill some one out of spite, by revenge, or because you didn't like them is wrong. To kill some one by punishment is a thouchy matter. You are killing them out of revenge for them killing some one. But the Bible says if any one lives by the sword they will die by the sword.

 

A question to all the non-beleivers. Why don't you beleive in God? If you did and repented and died you would go to heaven, but if there is no God as you say then what diferrence would it make. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared just in case than to find out that there is a God and be sorry in the end? Also what have you got to loose by beleiving?

[Totenkopf]

That's a little condescending, don't you think?

 

 

 

True, but he did say loosely, indicating--at least in my mind--that he was quoting from memory, and that it probably isn't exact.

 

 

Technically, no. She was going to be stoned for adultery.

[Negative Sun]

A question to all the non-beleivers. Why don't you beleive in God? If you did and repented and died you would go to heaven, but if there is no God as you say then what diferrence would it make. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared just in case than to find out that there is a God and be sorry in the end? Also what have you got to loose by beleiving?

What have I got to lose? My self-respect for one, and why would anyone believe in God out of fear? Because I think that's what many people do, they believe, or think they believe because they are afraid of what will happen to them after death, but the truth is, they don't really believe with their heart and soul, so what's the point? If God really is so wise and powerful, will he not see right through that?

 

I'd rather live my life at peace with myself and believe what I believe in, than betray myself just for the security of a POSSIBLE afterlife (which I don't think exists, but again, there's no way to prove it so it comes down to belief)

[Luke.Skywalker]

What have I got to lose? My self-respect for one, and why would anyone believe in God out of fear? Because I think that's what many people do, they believe, or think they believe because they are afraid of what will happen to them after death, but the truth is, they don't really believe with their heart and soul, so what's the point? If God really is so wise and powerful, will he not see right through that?

 

I'd rather live my life at peace with myself and believe what I believe in, than betray myself just for the security of a POSSIBLE afterlife (which I don't think exists, but again, there's no way to prove it so it comes down to belief)

 

Self-respect? Since when has religion been a form a self-respect? You are right though! most people, if not all, think and beleive in God out of fear but that's where they go wrong. God is about love and kindness, not hate and fear.

 

And after life has been proven. For the beleivers there is Jesus when he returned 3 days after he was crucified, and for the non-beleivers there are ghosts. For ghosts to even exist there has to be an after life of some sort.

 

EDIT: For every ones sake can this thread be closed before it turns into a flame war? The question that had started this thread has more than been answered, and topic is getting way off bases, and even too personal for some.

 

PLEASE

[The Source]

MacLeodGR, let me make it clear to you: I am not out to get you. I myself am Christian and have my own beliefs on faith and God. I just think that you need to stop going into debates half-cocked. You're speaking from your heart, which is good, because it demonstrates the passion and the zeal you have for your faith. But it is also bad because it is making you irrational and causing you to put up arguments that are not fully thought out. You constantly tell people to be careful and specific with what they say and ask, when you yourself do not give second thought to nature and specificity of what you type. You have valid points based off of your faith. I am simply asking you to better expound on them, because they are far too easy to pigeonhole.

Sure your not.

 

Sure, I will make sure I am sober when I come into the forums.

 

Yeah. You make some good points. I saw the size of your post, and I want to approach what you have questioned carefully. So, I am going to take the time to go over them, and then I will reedit this post.

 

At least I am trying to use scripture.

 

My perspective on the world is not ment to be on the same level as everyone elses. I have been told that my interpretation on the world is very-very different. I have actually been told by teachers, professors, and others that my perspective is very usual. Even though my solutions are correct, they are not in sync with the normal tradition (U.S. Educational Teaching Style.). I was told it is called: Dimentional Thinking. Sometimes I am thinking on another level and speed than norm, and then it comes out 'What the hell did you say?'. Even though I actually said the statement I want to, everyone else interprates the statement with 'What?'. Actually, at the moment, I was thinking about four variations to Quantum Mechanics (Mathematics), my thesis statement for a senior project (Its two pages long at the moment, so I have to cut the thesis down before I type it.), and this post all at once. I will slowdown when I type in these forums, and make sure I present a 'normal' and 'percise' statement. I will try anyway.

 

The information I posted about the Bible did come from a Bible guide, which contains scripture and the author's point of view. Its called: NASB Study Bible. I most like was thinking about the study notes, and not about the scripture as is. I was also remembering the coallation between two scriptures, which are suggested to be conntected. One scripture about the protitute, and the second is about the sinner that arrives to clean Jesus's feet. She is actually debated to be Mary-Magline, but I don't know this for 100% certainty.

 

There are Jewish people that do believe in Christ. Within the United States, there are actually Jewish groups promoting Jesus.

 

Yeah. My statement about other religious beliefs was a little overboard. My point at the moment didn't come off too well. I will have to rethink my statement, so I can create some clearity.

[Negative Sun]

Self-respect? Since when has religion been a form a self-respect? You are right though! most people, if not all, think and beleive in God out of fear but that's where they go wrong. God is about love and kindness, not hate and fear.

 

And after life has been proven. For the beleivers there is Jesus when he returned 3 days after he was crucified, and for the non-beleivers there are ghosts. For ghosts to even exist there has to be an after life of some sort.

 

EDIT: For every ones sake can this thread be closed before it turns into a flame war? The question that had started this thread has more than been answered, and topic is getting way off bases, and even too personal for some.

 

PLEASE

I don't deny the existance of ghosts, but that has nothing to do with God or Christianity for me, it's the residual energy or spirits of humans who are recently deceased or have very strong spirits or souls, but that's my opinion...

 

I said I would lose my self-respect if I started believing in God, because I would just be lying to myself and pretend to be someone I'm not, and that's something I cannot do, hence I would have no self-respect...

 

If the mods wanted to lock down this thread, they would have done it a long time ago, as far as I can see there's no flame war going on, unless you intend to start one?

There is such a thing as freedom of speech, and just because someone doesn't like what he/she reads, doesn't mean they have to start a flame war or ask the mods to close down the thread, if you don't like it, you have the choice to stay out of this thread...

 

There are Jewish people that do believe in Christ. Within the United States, there are actually Jewish groups promoting Jesus.

Which makes sense, Jesus was Jewish and maybe the best example for any person of the Jewish faith to follow...

[Cygnus Q'ol]

How far off subject could we possibly get here?

 

The purpose of this thread is... ?

 

 

 

...looks around corner knowing Prime isn't far.

[The Source]

Which makes sense, Jesus was Jewish and maybe the best example for any person of the Jewish faith to follow...

After remembering some stuff from Art History class, I can see how people would endup being baffled about religion.

 

Christianity Beliefs - Pieces split off the church, and then they split from each other, etc...

 

Jewish Beliefs - Pieces split off from the core, and they established extensions.

 

Islamic Belifes - Pieces split off from the core, and they established extensions.

 

I can see where someone may say, "What the hey?". I can tell you why Christianity split during the Reinasance (sp?), but I am not sure about the others. Islam is pretty new to me, so I have not had the chance to look at the details. I could tell you the historical background to the Bible.

 

How far off subject could we possibly get here?

 

The purpose of this thread is... ?

 

...looks around corner knowing Prime isn't far.

I think we are still close to the subject. Even though we are not hovering on that one question, I think we are still exploring the historical ideology and the legitimatcy (sp?) of the Bible, and the question of, "Is killing justified?"

[Jae Onasi]

I don't deny the existance of ghosts, but that has nothing to do with God or Christianity for me, it's the residual energy or spirits of humans who are recently deceased or have very strong spirits or souls, but that's my opinion...

I'm asking this sincerely, and I hope it doesn't come across as witchy, because that is not the tone I'm trying to take here. Anyway, here's my question:

 

If one can believe in ghosts as departed souls, how does a person then deny the One who created those souls in the first place?

 

 

On the semi-off-topicness (Jae makes a new word)--I suppose the thread could always be split, but the topic of religion I think is still in the realm of the original question.

Edit: In any case, that's the moderators' job. I'm just along for the ride on this thread, and a fun one it is for me.

[The Source]

I'm asking this sincerely, and I hope it doesn't come across as witchy, because that is not the tone I'm trying to take here. Anyway, here's my question:

 

If one can believe in ghosts as departed souls, how does a person then deny the One who created those souls in the first place?

 

 

On the semi-off-topicness (Jae makes a new word)--I suppose the thread could always be split, but the topic of religion I think is still in the realm of the original question.

The title says "Question About Religion'; therefore, we can say, "Questions About Religion".

[Negative Sun]

I'm asking this sincerely, and I hope it doesn't come across as witchy, because that is not the tone I'm trying to take here. Anyway, here's my question:

 

If one can believe in ghosts as departed souls, how does a person then deny the One who created those souls in the first place?

No offense taken Jae, but I don't deny the One who created those souls, because again, that is YOUR belief Jae, not mine...

You believe it was God who created all our souls, i don't, it's as simple as that...

The concept of a soul was around a long time before Christians, and it is present in just about every religion as far as I know, so why can't and Atheist believe in them?

Atheism means that I do not believe in God, it doesn't mean that I don't believe there's anything else out there, I know there are forces in this Universe that go beyond our comprehension, some believe it's God, I don't...

I actually believe it's something like a life-force (or The Force if you want, but without the Jedi and stuff), but again I can't prove that and it's my own personal belief...

[Jae Onasi]

You're asking about an individual's morals, and I'm talking about an entire frame of reference--on the broad scale, not the individual.

Then explain the widespread and terrible views of the Church back in the Middle Ages.

 

What things are you asking about?

 

 

What can an atheist use as a moral frame of reference when there is no objective basis outside oneself?

There is also society.

If man makes up society, who in society becomes the benchmark? One person? A small group? The entire thing? Where is the absolute when society is constantly changing? A number of societies thought infant sacrifice was acceptable. Nazi society was horrendous, and Stalin's society killed millions. Kim's society is causing millions to starve, and even the US can't claim to be the ultimate arbiter in what is considered 'good'. Society is made up entirely of imperfect people. Do I want to peg a moral absolute on imperfect people? No, because 20 years from now with a new generation it may be different anyway, and so therefore no absolute can ever be achieved.

 

 

If I said that all men should only wear scanty Tarzan loincloths because it would enhance their attractiveness, thus benefitting our species, who's right--you (assuming you don't want to wear scanty loincloths all the time) or me?

Tell that to the men up in Alaska.

Well, I suppose the cold could have a detrimental effect in that case, so they can wear coats outside and then wear loincloths where/when it's warm.

 

 

If I want to express my artistic freedom by running around nude in public (which actually would be far more amusing than anything else ), why am I not right?

It wouldn't feel very good for starters.

 

Assuming it didn't feel good (and the only situation I could see that happening is during winter here), one can suffer for art. The point is, if a moral absolute is pegged on _me_, and I say streaking is good, how can you say I'm wrong?

 

 

You've made earlier claims that pretty much everyone goes to heaven once they die. Why exactly is there a Hell, then?

 

Actually, I didn't say that specifically. God provides everyone the option, we each individually have to make the decision.

Hell--the Bible is not tremendously specific on the nature of Hell, other than it's an unpleasant place to be. I think anything that separates us from God and ultimate love would be horrendous. It's there for those who, when given the option, openly defy God. That being said, I would never presume to say someone must be going to hell even if they were Hannibal Lecter types, because it's the height of arrogance for me to say I completely know what's in their hearts and minds. I also don't presume to know who's going to heaven, either. We can make educated guesses that Hitler belongs in Hell and Mother Teresa belongs in Heaven, but it's still only a guess.

 

 

However, when you're talking about having to bridge a gap light-years wide in the relationship with God, the difference between my miles of good works and Jack's inches of good works is suddenly miniscule in comparison.

That is a poor system, then. Shouldn't people be rewarded for trying to the best of their ability?

The crux of this is the relationship and love, not the works, and He bridges the gap back to each of us, not because we deserve it, but just because He loves each of us.

 

 

That still doesn't explain why some people die and others live. You seem to be addressing why some people are religious or not.

That's because that's what I thought you were asking about. We're all going to die at some point.

 

 

b. they make me a better person here on earth c. they help me make life better for the people around me

Please elaborate.

b.--the intent of that comment really was specific to me only--I'm not trying to apply that to anyone else. In any case, it reminds me to love and reminds me to not be a self-centered jerk. Following the guidelines set down in the New testament reduces stress and teaches me to give up worry. Not that I'm always successful, mind you.... Some of women in the Bible (Ruth, Esther) provide examples for me in ways some of the women in my life would never be able to do--e.g. my mother is bipolar, and the illness rendered her incapable of being a great example. Proverbs give some very practical tips on life that I would have had to learn the hard way had I not read it. I could probably write pages on this. c.--I don't believe that I, personally, would have been as willing to volunteer as much as I have/do without Christ's example. I certainly would not be giving as much financially to the various charities I contribute to (and I pick those very carefully--I don't want my money going to administrators). There were some decisions and sacrifices I made out of love for the person rather than benefits to me personally. I stayed with my grandma as she died and spent a lot of time with my friend before he died of AIDS (and I would have stayed with him to the end, too, if circumstances had allowed). That was certainly painful for me, but they needed my love and support more than I needed to shy away from the pain or avoid the risk of exposure to HIV and the other diseases my friend had.

Explain this objective code. It's easy to tell what's right and what isn't. How does believing in a higher power than us change that?

Is it so easy, though? We think infanticide is wrong, but the Mayans didn't. Hitler thought genocide was acceptable. Mao thought killing intellectuals to further his agenda was correct. Al-qaeda thinks it's acceptable to plow planes into buildings and conduct homicide bombings. It's very clear that it is not easy for us to tell what's right and what isn't when we base the standard on finite, imperfect humans rather than an infinite, perfect God.

We have. It's called evolution.

I can buy most of evolution (because I think God uses the laws He put in place to create the universe) until we get to the abiogenesis part, which, from my knowledge of biochemistry and stats, I find impossible to happen by pure chance alone.

 

I'm going to present it as Zacharias does--the philosophical and moral dimensions first, and then apply it to our reality. {snip}

Interesting.

I certainly thought so. It definitely made me think.

[Emperor Devon]

Henceforth, Jae, I will be calling you 'Mother Onasi' in this thread...

 

What things are you asking about?

 

You seem to be saying that not believing in God provides no objective outside the self, for the most part. Am I correct in assuming that?

 

If man makes up society, who in society becomes the benchmark? {snip}

 

I fail to see how religion has been any better. There've been countless atrocities done in its name.

 

Well' date=' I suppose the cold could have a detrimental effect in that case, so they can wear coats outside and then wear loincloths where/when it's warm. [/quote']

 

I don't want to sit on a cold plastic chair in a loincloth, thank you.

 

Plus I would hate the idea that a forty-something year old a few hundred miles away from me that I know on an online forum would dictate what I wear every day.

 

The point is' date=' if a moral absolute is pegged on _me_, and I say streaking is good, how can you say I'm wrong? [/quote']

 

Would you want your kids to see a naked woman? Of course not. Neither do all the other (reasonable) parents out there.

 

Plus you'd get in trouble with the police. All in the name of art.

 

Actually, I didn't say that specifically. God provides everyone the option, we each individually have to make the decision.

 

You said earlier that anyone who holds the smallest bit of love in their hearts would go along with God. Hitler and Stalin, two of the greatest villains in history, have shown they possessed it for a few people. Not that that makes up for what they did during their lives, mind you, but that would make it so no one I can think of would go to Hell.

 

It's there for those who, when given the option, openly defy God.

 

Your definition might be different than mine, but haven't my past several posts defied Him?

 

However, when you're talking about having to bridge a gap light-years wide in the relationship with God, the difference between my miles of good works and Jack's inches of good works is suddenly miniscule in comparison.

 

That is a poor system, then. Shouldn't people be rewarded for trying to the best of their ability?

 

The crux of this is the relationship and love, not the works, and He bridges the gap back to each of us, not because we deserve it, but just because He loves each of us.

 

So the works you do in life don't matter? This goes back to the subject of tyrants who can repent.

 

That's because that's what I thought you were asking about. We're all going to die at some point.

 

I mean why some people die in accidents and others don't. For instance, why did you survive a car crash when other people haven't?

 

b.--the intent of that comment really was specific to me only--I'm not trying to apply that to anyone else. In any case, it reminds me to love and reminds me to not be a self-centered jerk.

 

Please elaborate on how the teachings of Christ will make you do better deeds than the thics every good person has will.

 

I don't believe that I, personally, would have been as willing to volunteer as much as I have/do without Christ's example.

 

So if it weren't for how a Saint was crucified centuries ago, you wouldn't be doing as many good works?

 

I certainly would not be giving as much financially to the various charities I contribute to (and I pick those very carefully--I don't want my money going to administrators). There were some decisions and sacrifices I made out of love for the person rather than benefits to me personally. I stayed with my grandma as she died and spent a lot of time with my friend before he died of AIDS (and I would have stayed with him to the end, too, if circumstances had allowed). That was certainly painful for me, but they needed my love and support more than I needed to shy away from the pain or avoid the risk of exposure to HIV and the other diseases my friend had.

 

Is it so easy, though? We think infanticide is wrong, but the Mayans didn't. Hitler thought genocide was acceptable. Mao thought killing intellectuals to further his agenda was correct. Al-qaeda thinks it's acceptable to plow planes into buildings and conduct homicide bombings. It's very clear that it is not easy for us to tell what's right and what isn't when we base the standard on finite, imperfect humans rather than an infinite, perfect God.

 

As I recall, the majority of the people and groups you listed believed in God.

 

I can buy most of evolution (because I think God uses the laws He put in place to create the universe) until we get to the abiogenesis part, which, from my knowledge of biochemistry and stats, I find impossible to happen by pure chance alone.

 

So you're saying that God is reponsible for making every little atom act the way it does?

 

Sorry about your mother and your friend, by the way.

[Jae Onasi]

Henceforth, Jae, I will be calling you 'Mother Onasi' in this thread...

You silly!

:rofl:

 

*game show buzzer* Wrong answer, but thank you for playing: I have not reached 40, thank you. Yet. Nice try.

 

The loincloth/streaking thing is obviously over the top--infanticide and murder is overdone in these types of arguments, and I wanted to pick something a little less depressing.

 

Edit: I was watching the Bears, ED. I have my priorities, you know. I'll hit the serious stuff sometime tomorrow. And yes, I really am younger than 40. Just ask Jimbo.

[Emperor Devon]

:rofl:

 

*game show buzzer* Wrong answer, but thank you for playing: I have not reached 40, thank you. Yet. Nice try.

 

So says you. I can tell.

 

The loincloth/streaking thing is obviously over the top

 

Obviously.

 

I understand ignoring a point or two you don't want to argue against, but don't you think an entire post is a bit much?

 

Edit: I'll ask him, then.

[Luke.Skywalker]

I don't deny the existance of ghosts, but that has nothing to do with God or Christianity for me, it's the residual energy or spirits of humans who are recently deceased or have very strong spirits or souls, but that's my opinion...

 

I do not discredit your opinion nor do I object to it.

 

I said I would lose my self-respect if I started believing in God, because I would just be lying to myself and pretend to be someone I'm not, and that's something I cannot do, hence I would have no self-respect...

 

Losing your self-respect from being some one you are not. Now I understand your point of veiw on this.

 

If the mods wanted to lock down this thread, they would have done it a long time ago, as far as I can see there's no flame war going on, unless you intend to start one?

 

I only mentioned about locking the thread because RaV™'s question has been answered, and we have created a new topic which should not have been allowed to continue in this thread. The question was about the religious aspect of killing some one, not what we all believe in and what our religion is. But seeming how we have wasted 4 pages over this topic I guess there is no need to lock it down.

 

And NO, I am not wanting to nor would I want to start a flame war. As you said yourself 'freedom of speech' which does give me the right to voice my opinion just the same as every one else.

 

There is such a thing as freedom of speech, and just because someone doesn't like what he/she reads, doesn't mean they have to start a flame war or ask the mods to close down the thread, if you don't like it, you have the choice to stay out of this thread...

 

I never said that I did not like what every one is posting or what I am reading. I knew the risk I was taking by reading all of this, and I knew the risk of posting my opinions. I did have the choice to stay out, but along with freedom of speech there is also free will, and I was willing to join the debate.

 

The reason for asking my question, besides the fact that every one else seemed to be on the subject, was for my curiousity to found out from others why they don't believe. I ment no personal attack or disrespect to any one by asking. I only was insearch for a more indepth explaination besides 'I don't believe in God'.

[Negative Sun]

And you've received that, I think I've explained my thoughts and views pretty well...But if you want to know more, you can always ask...

[Luke.Skywalker]

And you've received that, I think I've explained my thoughts and views pretty well...But if you want to know more, you can always ask...

 

Will do!