The thread where I will attempt to answer questions you have regarding Christianity

[404 Not Found]

Oddly enough, if you study the basis of most ORGANIZED relegion, you will see that there is a common moral level as to where the teaching of what's deemed as wrong or not, is mentioned as a guide to living your life.

To say that your relegion is the best or the only one that people should pay any attention too, as well as lead your life by is ridiculous.

Organized relegion in my book is pure 100% BS and crap....old stories passed down through the ages. Try getting a group of people together and passing a story to the person next to you and see what the story ends up being by the time it gets back to you.

I also keep noting that there is the mention of atheists throughout the thread. Why is this used as the extreme opposite pole?

I do not beleive in any of the organized relegions on the face of this earth! Am I to be categorized as an Athiest since I am not part of the exclusive club of God? ....F' NO... I am agnostic, as to where I have beleifs, but I am not going to be told how and what to do in order to seek praise from God, especially if I have to pay fgor it!!!...if anything agnostics have a broader outlook on the way relegion is distrubting the world as agnostics do not wear the blinders that these holy rollers wear.

To beleive in god is one thing, to push it on others is another, but to have a basic understanding for all relegions would give you a better grounded understanding of the many cultures and beleifs of the worlds citizens.

Organized Relegion in itself, will be the cause for the end of the human race in my book!

God doesn't suck as an idea or point of hope, Organized Relegions suck!

[K2Grey]

I also keep noting that there is the mention of atheists throughout the thread. Why is this used as the extreme opposite pole?

I would think that atheists are a better extreme opposite pole to organized religion than agnostics.

[Kolar]

To beleive in god is one thing, to push it on others is another, but to have a basic understanding for all relegions would give you a better grounded understanding of the many cultures and beleifs of the worlds citizens.

You've got it all wrong 404, they're all going to hell... we can justify treating people like shit if a few of the fuckers convert. The root of all of this leads back to lossing objectivity with your knowledge and beliefs. Trying to fit both together looks like a fucking joke to me.



I could case less if he wants to believe that, people can do what they want with their minds and time but practicing this and pushing on others and disrupting policy making to me is wrong beyond anything I can think of. You can say I'm just practicing my faith ect ect.. or that you're protected because it's a religious view point but it really is an invasive practice that has gone on for too long in this culture. Fear, hate mongering and arrogance are not tools to obtain enlightenment and if there is a hell, it is created though your own belief in it and it will be yours alone.



If God exists then he wouldn't have left us to interpret a 2,000 year old book which has lost all meaning to modern life, he wouldn't have even given us the concept of his existance knowing that whatever thoughts and feelings we would have of him wouldn't acknowledge his existance in any significant way. All faiths and religions are a joke to me but they do keep the masses from destroying our civilization (Just BARELY).

[genocidal]

I'm pretty sure TelCat is God - or at least a Messiah.

[DoTheFandango]

Have you read Paradise Lost?

John Milton argued that God knew humans would fail. Yet he created them with free will to see if they could change their ways and be more than the failures they are doomed to be..

Of course this goes against God's idea of omnisciency, because he knew they would fail. This makes God falliable.

The whole thing is a confusing paradox that makes you really wonder if life is like this.

[pv=nrt]

Have you read Paradise Lost?

John Milton argued that God knew humans would fail. Yet he created them with free will to see if they could change their ways and be more than the failures they are doomed to be..

Of course this goes against God's idea of omnisciency, because he knew they would fail. This makes God falliable.

The whole thing is a confusing paradox that makes you really wonder if life is like this.

Gods is falliable becuase a creature with free choice choose against him? Sounds like a flawed argument to me.


404 you sound like you have had a bad experience with a religion forcing you to pay money.

[iKillburger]

If God exists then he wouldn't have left us to interpret a 2,000 year old book which has lost all meaning to modern life

Although a story is placed in an older time to be heard by an old people, it does not mean that something does not hold meaning today i.e: love your neighbor as yourself or any of the various parables. view the old testamnet like a kind of history book because i huge part of it no longer plays into Christianity. It contains a lot of things taken from mysticism and yeah... other really unchristian things. The new Testament is a much better guide to how christianity works

he wouldn't have even given us the concept of his existance knowing that whatever thoughts and feelings we would have of him wouldn't acknowledge his existance in any significant way.

Why dont we acknowledge his existance by going back to one of the greatest thinkers Aristotle: Aristotle purported to have proven the existence of God, but he did so based on a kind of logic that deals with properties of objects, an approach, he argued, that's less than satisfying considering that God's attributes cannot be perceived. Aristotle insisted that there must be a first cause, namely God, in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies of an infinite regress of causes for the universe.

[Kolar]

Most of it is not relivent to our lives today. A simple example of this is homosexualty was made a sin, a simple reasoning is that it would effect the fragile population roughly between 500-300 BCE. Today we know that it is not just a lifestyle choice and that it would never effect our population or do any damage to society yet it is still a sin and gays are discriminated against. The Bible is not a historical document, it may have some stories about early civilization but little of it can be taken for truth, unless you're to far gone into it. It's the survival guide for the common man, first century CE.

Why dont we acknowledge his existance by going back to one of the greatest thinkers Aristotle: Aristotle purported to have proven the existence of God, but he did so based on a kind of logic that deals with properties of objects, an approach, he argued, that's less than satisfying considering that God's attributes cannot be perceived. Aristotle insisted that there must be a first cause, namely God, in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies of an infinite regress of causes for the universe.

It's a weakness in our logic.

Everything we can conceive of as real exists within our universe, even time, space ect.. beyond that may be a superior being and concepts I couldn't even begin to understand. I'm not against the possiability of God existing. I dislike people who go around cause fear and panic about this shit when it really should be a personal and spiritual experience, I am against flawed logic and religious doctrine that blinds people from thinking about these things.

[Bioture]

Most of it is not relivent to our lives today. A simple example of this is homosexualty was made a sin, a simple reasoning is that it would effect the fragile population roughly between 500-300 BCE. Today we know that it is not just a lifestyle choice and that it would never effect our population or do any damage to society yet it is still a sin and gays are discriminated against. The Bible is not a historical document, it may have some stories about early civilization but little of it can be taken for truth, unless you're to far gone into it. It's the survival guide for the common man, first century CE.

I agree with kolar when he was talking about the dangers of dogmatism. However, please keep in mind that the discrimination (all discrimination) will ultimately be up to God. No where in the bible does it say "do not love a sinner." If you look at the life of Jesus, he never hanged around the socially elite, the politically correct, or the spiritually pure. But rather he chose the sinners, the prostitutes, taxcollectors, lepers, etc. Because His job was to usher people into the kingdom of heaven, not turn them away.

The bible can be taken quite literally as a historical document based upon geography and geology, sociology, and etc. Have you actually read it and done a tiny bit of research? Or are you just going on what websites and other non-believers have told you?

It's a weakness in our logic.

Everything we can conceive of as real exists within our universe, even time, space ect.. beyond that may be a superior being and concepts I couldn't even begin to understand. I'm not against the possiability of God existing. I dislike people who go around cause fear and panic about this shit when it really should be a personal and spiritual experience, I am against flawed logic and religious doctrine that blinds people from thinking about these things.

Again, I agree that religion should be vastly a personal experience as opposed to an organized experience. I believe that some churches are very corrupt, and that there are priests who molested boys and etc etc. Because the fact is, no matter how eloquently or succinctly a man describes spirituality, it is very much inexplicable at best.

But back to your "flawed logic" argument - if logic is in your word "conceptual" then your logic on this topic will never coincide with mine. What makes it dangerous, in most cases, is one person or group saying "you're beliefs are flawed" or "in believing in a flawed document, you are flawed" without actually measuring the immeasurable personal effect that it might of had on another group of people. If religion is to be mostly personal and spirtual as you described, then why point out certain religious doctrine as being "blinding"? Or are they just unacceptable to you personally?

[Bioture]

Oddly enough, if you study the basis of most ORGANIZED relegion, you will see that there is a common moral level as to where the teaching of what's deemed as wrong or not, is mentioned as a guide to living your life.

To say that your relegion is the best or the only one that people should pay any attention too, as well as lead your life by is ridiculous.

Organized religion, or religion itself is the tool of the devil. Just think about it as a construct of man, if man is inherently imperfect and corrupt, then his construct will sometimes have the same attributes as well. Please understand that most educated christians seperate religion from spirituality. I understand spirituality and faith to be constructs of God (however absurd it may be to a non-believer) and therefore it is wonderous, impredictable, and flawless - all at the same time.

The point of this thread is not to say hey look at me the christian I'll lead you all to perfect lives, but rather to have a forum where the topic can debated freely.

Organized relegion in my book is pure 100% BS and crap....old stories passed down through the ages. Try getting a group of people together and passing a story to the person next to you and see what the story ends up being by the time it gets back to you.

Adages exist for a reason, why is it that when we read certain stories, we can recognize the truth in them? Yes organized religion might be 100% BS. But to say that religion and spirituality itself are all just old stories that doesn't pertain to the moral fiber of today's society, maybe its a good idea to read the newspaper once and awhile and take a guess at where all the societal, political, and religious morals came from.

I also keep noting that there is the mention of atheists throughout the thread. Why is this used as the extreme opposite pole?

Personally, I see atheists as the extreme because they actively deny or try to disprove the same God that I talk about and believe in. To have faith (in anything) or to be in a religion (any religion) is one thing, to actively deny all religion and spirituality is another.

I do not beleive in any of the organized relegions on the face of this earth! Am I to be categorized as an Athiest since I am not part of the exclusive club of God? ....F' NO... I am agnostic, as to where I have beleifs, but I am not going to be told how and what to do in order to seek praise from God, especially if I have to pay fgor it!!!...if anything agnostics have a broader outlook on the way relegion is distrubting the world as agnostics do not wear the blinders that these holy rollers wear.

That's fine, you're not supposed to believe in religion anyway. But maybe ask yourself the question: what do you think you have to do to reach God? Is there any amount of good deeds that will be enough?

P.S. God's club isn't exclusive at all! Why do you think Jesus ushered the theif on the cross next to him into heaven?

To beleive in god is one thing, to push it on others is another, but to have a basic understanding for all relegions would give you a better grounded understanding of the many cultures and beleifs of the worlds citizens.

Organized Relegion in itself, will be the cause for the end of the human race in my book!

God doesn't suck as an idea or point of hope, Organized Relegions suck!

It's spelled religion(s). And I seriously don't understand why everyone has the image of the Jehova's witnesses in their heads when they think about christians when they talk about christianity. "oh no here comes the bible slinging asian guy who starts using the big words and blah blah blah"

Maybe I discovered something that was good and I want to share it with you? Just remember that the God that you deny is the same God that put you on this earth. You might not believe it now, which is the one thing that seperates you and me.

[Kolar]

Discrimination is done by humans and because religious texts are interrupted by humans it is something we've created and it is an injustice. It's not a historical document. Almost nothing of the Israelites can be found but for a small bit on an egyptian tablet, I could also list a lot of things proven wrong but as a Christian i'm sure you're well versed in it. I'm not saying they didn't exist, they probably did but the bible can not be taken as a souce for this time period because 1. it's writen from a religious preseptive 2. the translations has left meanings and ideas skewed and 3. it leaves too much up to interprtation so that little of solid facts and ideas on basic items can not be determined and much of it goes against modern science and logical thinking.



The chicken and the egg idea is what I was getting at. It's beyond our logic to understand something from nothing. We're pretty much limited like that. It's logical to assume a creator figure would fit into this to solve that but I don't consider that proof of existance only the truth that we're not perfect and that in our current state we will not know anything but that. It's just as dangerous for christians to be "practicing" their faith on people, I don't think a damn person ever thought about the emotional effects of telling a person they're going to hell for not believing this. I don't think anyone would have a problem with you believing in whatever just as long as it isn't forced or pushed on people, in that case I can be critical all I want and if that's offensive then maybe you should pick a more passive religion. Organized religion as I see it is blinding people to spiruality and complex thinking.

[Theif of Time]

Assuming that we were created, while helping our psyche, doesn't help our understanding.
If we were created, how were we created?
Instantaneously? Gradually, like a god-guided growth from base elements?
By evolution, guided on by the creators hand?

This is why simply saying we were created is unsatisfying. Because ultimately it doesn't explain to a curious mind.

[iKillburger]

Most of it is not relivent to our lives today. A simple example of this is homosexualty was made a sin, a simple reasoning is that it would effect the fragile population roughly between 500-300 BCE. Today we know that it is not just a lifestyle choice and that it would never effect our population or do any damage to society yet it is still a sin and gays are discriminated against.

the catechism states " 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
and " 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."


So if u didnt want to read all that it says that homosexuals are to be given the same respect as anyone else. However they are called to a chaste life. For anyone to have sex and not have it be considered a sin they must be married and be doing it for the purpose of procreation. If you can find a way for homosexuals to procreate, im sure the church would be much more open.

If you dont like Aristotle i can try to remember some St. Thomas Aquinas.
from motion to an Unmoved Mover
*similar to aristotle's in that something has to move in order to move something else, that God
from effects to a First Cause
*every effect is caused by a first cause. thats God
from contingent being to a Necessary Being
*I dont remember this one
from degrees of perfection to a Most Perfect Being
*Considering there is always something better, there eventually most be a best which is God who is perfect
from design in nature to a Designer of nature.
*The laws of nature and stuff didnt exist at the beginning of time. God designed how nature worked

[Decoy]

I'd shit on this thread but it's already so shitty I don't know if it could take anymore

[Theif of Time]

incidentally, its mean to be a thread for serious discussion.
Just because religion is being discussed, doesn't mean its shitty or irrelevant. Mankind has a long and sometimes difficult history with religion, its a... symbiotic relationship. Individuals can go without it. The entire race? No, we cannot.