Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[wierd]

There are surmountable issues to build character and show nature. Then there are natural disasters and painful, destructive diseases. There is dementia, which enables someone to look at their daughter and not recognise them. There are constructive pains, used as "God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world" (C.S. Lewis), and then there are pains which do not rouse. They crush, and if there is a hand behind it then I am going to call that hand malevolent, for no good being could design, or perhaps even conceive, of such circumstances - not to mention actually put them in action.

^Addressed to wierd.

I'm gonna get some sleep, so don't expect a reply any time soon.

Natural disasters:  We humans get better at predicting them every day. Eventually, we will be able to predict them perfectly.

Dementia: The causes of dementia are better understood each day as well. Progress is slow, but methods of treatment and eventual reversal are on the horizon. This is not an insurmountable task, just a very hard one. (protip: do not try to engage me on the subject of dementia. I have seen it in many forms, and work with it frequently, as I work at a nursing home. I have seen family of residents literally use the system to kill their demented relatives via denial of care to get at the inheritance.)

Diseases: Likewise.

And again, if we take the christian god as being real, the physical existence is temporary. Your grandpa will remember you after he dies, and the diseased body releases its poisoned grip on his consciousness. How you treat your grandpa when he has forgotten you is a test in and of itself. Do you ever stop loving him, just because he cant think clearly, rants, and raves? Do we give up on our searching for ways to treat people with horrible diseases, because of how horrible and resistant to our efforts those diseases are?

 

[Silverthrone]

This is an interesting place. I am far too out of my depth to contribute, but it is very pleasant to read. These sort of things tends to develop into rubbish, in either direction, but Bay12 is a strange place where the most unusual things might happen.

[x2yzh9]

I've had great tests and trials in my life as well weird. I remember having a dream naught two or three months after my father passed away. It was in a endless white room, with no perceivable boundaries or sounds. He simply smiled at me, held out his hand, and to be honest I was scared to take his hand at the time. I've had instances of spirits talking to me, and even as (what I) perceivable as the holy ghost communicating with me. I've been through some horrifying shit which I won't delve into, but the one thing that kept me going was god in the end. Even if the forum users want to placate that as circumstantial, I do agree with a lot of the points you said on religion, but I also take a scientific theological approach to it.

   Personally, as far as the apocrypha and apocalypse type scenarios goes, yes, it was propagandized, but the very reason for that (I believe) is the fact that it was sent as a warning, and not something that was set in stone. Even as I was talking to one very old wise person of my family who's hospitalized, she simply said that when it comes time we will transcend our mortal bodies-Most take this as dying and going to heaven. What I take it as is this-Space age technology, doing away with disease, illness, making our lifespans insanely high, and among other things.

   This leads me to my topic: Starchildren, and whether or not you guys believe in it or not. I'm not here to preach even if it sounds like that, I'm just sending a message here. In the bible itself it says that the stars sing to eachother; as has been proven we are all made of 'stardust' and 'starstuff', so is there not and impermeable energy force communicating through our universe itself in that sense? If any of you have read up on starchildren, I would do it now preferably. The truth is the environment they grow up in and the trials they go through are tests to see between good and evil, and they hold great spiritual powers. That's my whole stance on spirituality and such. Take it with a grain of salt, if you'd like.

Edit: Here's a link, if you'd like to take the time to read through it. http://www.crystalinks.com/childrensic.html

[Cthulhu]

as has been proven we are all made of 'stardust' and 'starstuff', so is there not and impermeable energy force communicating through our universe itself in that sense?

No, there isn't.  Or well, there is energy, but energy is a system's potential to do work.

Some of the atoms in your body were probably once in a dinosaur's ass too, if we're applying some kind of significance to what our atoms used to be.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's no such thing as "stardust", that's just a metaphor for stellar nucleosynthesis being the source of all elements other than hydrogen.

And there's definitely no such thing as starchildren, for nearly countless reasons.

[Rolan7]

But have you considered that people want it to be true? And that their belief is infinitely less threatening than, idk, Christians who believe the Bible literally? (Certainly not all, but vocally most around here)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ignoring truth is never nonthreatening. Some of the most dangerous people in the world are flower power soccer moms who want everything to be peaceful and also don't vaccinate their children.

The divide between literalism and symbolism is also not very meaningful. Literal texts also contain contradictions and are long enough to put emphasis on the elements you desire, and thus are as self-serving as symbolic beliefs.

What we want to be true is meaningless.

[Neonivek]

Ignoring truth is never nonthreatening.

Wait... are we talking about someone being "presented with the truth" and ignoring it?

Or are we talking about someone KNOWING something is the truth... and ignoring it?

Because those are two really different things.

[Rolan7]

@MSH
Maybe it depends.  When it infringes on our survival as a species, like creationism does, it is meaningless and harmless.  But when it's conjecture that will probably never be substantiated or disproven...

There's still a little harm, but it's so tiny and rare compared to the main religions (and their secular, mostly disinterested followers... zealots once shit goes down. Easter Christians as I call them)

Honestly I think these odd spinoffs are good, because they encourage or even require independent thought. Which is the most important thing, really

[Rolan7]

Replying to some stuff from the US Politics thread, since it moves fast enough without bringing in religion

e, ironically."
Did I mention that the DMV had a big ol Christmas tree when I visited - in mid November?  Fortunately they were really nice, so I ended up feeling welcome anyway, but in my opinion it's not appropriate.

Christmas trees aren't Christian symbolism however. Since it is a secular addition to the holiday it doesn't count.

Jesus is just as much a secular addition to Abrahamic religions
Well, 2000 years rather than ~1000 years, but... yeah.
I suppose we should also celebrate Easter because it also borrowed from pagan rituals?
...which makes it okay, for some reason??

There's people who would seriously argue that any connection to Christmas, no matter how tenuous is unacceptable.

A lot of Christians aren't happy that the birth of their savior is literally being declared secular, and turned into a commercial extravaganza.  I don't want to celebrate their holiday, and I don't want to corrupt their holiday.

It's like if Thanksgiving took place at the end of Ramadan, and was an excuse to eat a whole lot, and was eagerly celebrated by Christians and atheists who still called it Ramadan but denied that it had anything to do with Islam anymore.  Wouldn't that be kinda fucked? 

And Christmas is soooo much bigger than Thanksgiving...  Literal praise music all over the airwaves.  I'm sure some individuals celebrate it secularly, but Christ is so obviously "the reason for the season".

[Rolan7]

Okay, on another topic...  http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/23-2.htm

No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD.

And people say the shellfish thing is crazy.  Now *this* is victim blaming.

Of course, it's eventually wiped away by Jesus's perfect sacrifice and all that, yadda yadda...  It's still a kick in the genitals, and makes me really angry.  Even with the forgiveness, it's saying that I and my descendants have that sin on me - and it's bad enough that even blood sacrifices can't remove it.

I feel bad enough about it without some punks saying it's a dectuple mortal sin, fuck!  Especially since it is literally not my fault, much less my descendants'...  Fuck you, Old Testament God.  That's not "mysterious ways", it's bullshit. 

Like the Cathars said, before they were slaughtered by the Church, OT God is a monster and Jesus is pretty cool.  (They would say perfect, and maybe they were right.  The Bible was assembled by mortals, after all, maybe His hissy-fits were false canon)

[Shadowlord]

Okay, on another topic...  http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/23-2.htm

No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD.

And people say the shellfish thing is crazy.  Now *this* is victim blaming.

Of course, it's eventually wiped away by Jesus's perfect sacrifice and all that, yadda yadda...  It's still a kick in the genitals, and makes me really angry.  Even with the forgiveness, it's saying that I and my descendants have that sin on me - and it's bad enough that even blood sacrifices can't remove it.

I feel bad enough about it without some punks saying it's a dectuple mortal sin, fuck!  Especially since it is literally not my fault, much less my descendants'...  Fuck you, Old Testament God.  That's not "mysterious ways", it's bullshit. 

Like the Cathars said, before they were slaughtered by the Church, OT God is a monster and Jesus is pretty cool.  (They would say perfect, and maybe they were right.  The Bible was assembled by mortals, after all, maybe His hissy-fits were false canon)

According to What The Preacher Said That One Time I Attended An Evangelical Church, you have to accept Jesus as your personal savior and surrender your will to him in order to be "saved." That may sound ezpz, if you don't value thinking for yourself or whatever, but it's actually still pretty awful:

NT God would be snubbing his nose at anyone meeting any of these criteria:
1. Born, lived, and died before Jesus was born,
2. Born, lived, and died anywhere where Jesus was unknown,
3. Heard of Jesus but did not convert because they grew up in some other religion,
4. Maybe also Jews who don't think Jesus was the prophesied savior,
5. People who read the bible and say "there sure are a lot of lies, starting at the very beginning, in this supposedly holy book that my religious relatives say was written by god",
and so on

#1 and #2 are the most problematic. Imagine some sky-god after jesus was crucified saying "You know, those mayans, fuck those guys, I never liked them anyways. They can all burn for eternity for all I care. If they really wanted to be saved, they medamned well ought to have been born omniscient."

[Rolan7]

Seems a little weird how the Old Testament rules are tough to follow, but certainly possible (unless you committed the unforgivable sin of your great grandparents not being married).

Then the NT rolls in saying "Literally everyone is sinners and thus needs this new gospel, fortunately you only have to join us to be forgiven of everything.  None of those old rules actually mattered."

Pretty sure I could come up with a more convincing cult.  Most people with a modern high school degree probably could...

[McTraveller]

NT God would be snubbing his nose at anyone meeting any of these criteria:
1. Born, lived, and died before Jesus was born,
2. Born, lived, and died anywhere where Jesus was unknown,
3. Heard of Jesus but did not convert because they grew up in some other religion,
4. Maybe also Jews who don't think Jesus was the prophesied savior,
5. People who read the bible and say "there sure are a lot of lies, starting at the very beginning, in this supposedly holy book that my religious relatives say was written by god",
and so on

#1 and #2 are the most problematic. Imagine some sky-god after jesus was crucified saying "You know, those mayans, fuck those guys, I never liked them anyways. They can all burn for eternity for all I care. If they really wanted to be saved, they medamned well ought to have been born omniscient."

You do realize that #1 and #2 are actually covered, and explain how people in those situations are credited with righteousness?  There are a couple books in the New Testament that cover it in pretty elaborate detail.

And in general, based on my recent reading of some of this thread:  Suffice it to say that it's quite likely that the image most people have about "gotta be saved!" comes from media coverage of extremely dogmatic, traditionally not very accountable churches that are overly focused on "personal salvation" - which is actually a relatively new concept (ca mid 1900s) ideas.  If you read Acts, a lot of what went on immediately after Jesus' ascension was focused on addressing most of the complaints about Christianity that I see show up in this and other discussions.  And those early days were about the corporate effects of following Christ, about how people were trying to get everyone to follow rules and the apostles were all like "yo people, stop trying to force people into what you think are the necessary rituals for following Jesus. That's not what it's about! Didn't you hear anything he taught?"

I think people keep perpetuating the idea that Christianity is about following some rules because it is so difficult to understand grace and how it's not based on earning.  Really the entire point of the focus on rules in the Bible is to show humanity that it's impossible to follow rules!  So rules can't be the source of "salvation" - which is why Christ was both necessary and so amazing.  There's a lot to be said but consider Jesus is quoted as both saying stuff like "I don't condemn you either (after sending away all the people who were going to legally throw stones)" to a woman caught in adultery about to be stoned and also saying "I didn't come to abolish the law but fulfill it".  But wait that's a contradiction you say?

There's an actual astonishing amount of academic rigor when it comes to reading the Bible in some circles of Christianity (it makes me sad to be lumped in with the circles of Christianity that are more dogmatic and not rigorous) - and it even includes stuff like looking at the literary style of each individual book (people who take a direct literal approach are missing a beat, I think), and most importantly looking at the collection as a whole rather than looking at each piece as a sub-whole and then saying various pieces contradict.

It's like trying to understand an automobile only by looking at its subsystems and saying it has contradictions because one system makes it go while another one makes it stop - you've missed the point of the vehicle entirely.

[Egan_BW]

Still seems right dickish to stick Jesus in a place where people in the americas wouldn't hear about him for over 1000 years, and then after enough time that christians had decided that killing non believers was super cool.