The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
I've got a 60-second window to respond to this just now, but will reply in more detail later. If you read my post carefully you will see that I clearly say that I neither endorse or encourage Genocide, and that I dislike some of Aquinas' philosophy.
The point I was trying to make is that it is important to consider the context in which a statement is made if you wish to understand why someone thinks as they do. The same applies to Hitler or Stalin, or any historical figure you care to name - you may not like their ideas, but if you consider their particular circumstances, you may better understand why they think as they do. Isn't "Know thine enemy" a wonderful quote?
And please, do not refer to me, or anyone else as "you people" - it's very unpleasant.
It's not just me that disliked their ideas, enough people apparently did to do something about it. It's like trying to justify God supposedly telling Moses to wipe out every man, woman and child of mulitiple tribes. You have people saying that we cannot judge because it was so long ago. Well, that is easy for me to counter simply with this. Did the people at the time getting killed think it was evil? The Hebrews kept the virgin girls from their conquests, did those women think it was evil? Think of it this way, you are the daughter of a sheep herder, 13 years old and not married yet and still a virgin. A horde of soldiers sweeps down on your village, kills your father in battle. They then behead your mother and your 1 year old sister with the sword. They then give you to some random invading soldier, he claims you as his, you are married to him against his will, and raped that very night. A sign of the times?0 -
I've got a 60-second window to respond to this just now, but will reply in more detail later. If you read my post carefully you will see that I clearly say that I neither endorse or encourage Genocide, and that I dislike some of Aquinas' philosophy.
The point I was trying to make is that it is important to consider the context in which a statement is made if you wish to understand why someone thinks as they do. The same applies to Hitler or Stalin, or any historical figure you care to name - you may not like their ideas, but if you consider their particular circumstances, you may better understand why they think as they do. Isn't "Know thine enemy" a wonderful quote?
And please, do not refer to me, or anyone else as "you people" - it's very unpleasant.
Ok I shall consider the context...
Thomas Aquinas was a human man and wanted the church he was a part of to increase in power. He figured a simple way to go about this was to kill off those who opposed his church. So he came up with a nice, easy way to circumvent "God's law" and justify the murder of non-believers. He betrayed his own doctrines and beliefs to increase the power and control of the Roman Catholic Church. And after hundreds of years that church still reveres him for his "service."
So I've got the context and it's still deplorable. As it was with Hiter. As it was with Stalin.
The word "context" is not a shield against criticism. To say I'm taking it out of context means I'm taking a small part and not looking at the whole picture. Well I promise you the more of this picture we look at the more disgusting it becomes. Do we need to start looking at just how many were killed for non-belief? Would it be ok if it were just a few? Or does the fact that it lead to more power for the Catholic church excuse the murder of a few innocents? I am simply asking what part of the context "minimizes or vanishes completely" the horror of killing those who believe differently. Provide it or stop stating it as fact.
And I won't refer to you as "you people". I will say "people like you".0 -
Very interesting reading everyone's comments. I think there are some very smart people on MFP and love to read and consider the different views.
I'll have to come back when I have more time.
Personally, I do believe in Jesus and the Holy Bible. I think it's the greatest self help book ever written also. "The Handwriting of God" is a good read if anyone is interested.
That is all... there is work to be done here0 -
Clearly, you can be good without God
Absolutely. Just as Christians can do very bad things. I don't think anyone has questioned the fact that atheists can be good people.0 -
A good read about Morality without God:Clearly, you can be good without God
I have never made the case that only Christianity has morality. What I have consistently argued is that moral reasoning presupposes an objective grounds or basis that imposes moral duty or obligation on the human mind. This is why we can look at the actions or thinking of others and judge it as moral or immoral. If there is no such objective standard or basis, atheist moral judgments are nothing more than subjective feelings or wishes and have no binding force on anyone. Whether one is a Christian or not, you can agree that moral principles are rooted in a supreme Mind (God). If someone denies such a supreme basis, you cannot justify moral judgments of others or other acts or cultures. An atheist is doing all of this but claim there is no God. I'm saying atheists have no grounds for doing that. You might argue that you just assert moral judgments and don't need a rational basis for them but I'm not sure how you will answer a Stalin or Hitler that choose to establish a new "morality."
Again........I've never argued that ony Christianity has morality. Does that make sense?0 -
Growing up catholic (my parents still are very devout), going to a catholic school, and even having to attend catechism for first communion, confirmation, etc. I've really shunned the way that catholicism works so much on proselytizing people around the world, especially the poor and uneducated. When it comes to community, helping the needy, providing academics, etc. I think it's great. But the religion makes up so many of it's own doctrines and sacraments with many not even having relevance to the bible, it's sad. The church has billions of dollars yet most of the money is spent on proselyzing rather than helping. Better to build a church than a shelter. The pope can make up an new "law" (the most recent I believe was against pedophilia) and catholics are bound by it. It's especially maddening when abortion is not allowed, yet neither is contraception.
Anyway, I know many good people who are catholic. I know many good people who are agnostic and atheist. I also know many good people who are Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, Pagan, etc. And I can truly say that I don't believe in god because I can't think of a being like that who justs wants people to suffer unless they give in. Sounds very narcisstic and that's a human element. It makes much more sense that the bible (and most religious books) were written by men for men.
I'm sure you're a great person and kind and generous, but I don't attribute that to a god you follow. I attribute it to you just being a good human.
I'm sorry to hear that your Catholic upbringing provided you with such a poor perspective on the Church and its teachings. Have you heard of the new video series and book by Fr. Barron? I think it is called "Catholicism." It is well done and I think it provides a much more balanced picture of the Church and what it is all about. I can address your various comments but each comment requires a fair amount of explanation so what I write will probably not be sufficient (and Brett urges me to keep my comments brief). Here are just a few thoughts:
1. The Church wants to bring the good new of Jesus to all people because that is what Jesus instructed us to do (Matthew 28:19). We believe the Gospel of Jesus is a wonderful treasure that brings hope and happiness to the human family and that God works through this Good News to accomplish his purposes. For the Church to not focus on missionary work would be to fail to respond to Christ's command and fail in her mission.
2. I think everything in the Catholic Church is rooted in the Bible and grows out of reflection on the Bible. This is certainly true with respect to the sacraments. I'm reading a good book right now on the Mass, for instance, called, "A Biblical Walk through the Mass." It shows how everything we say and do in the Mass is reflected in and grounded upon the Bible.
3. I'm not sure if it is fair to say the Church has "billions of dollars" and spends most of it on proselytizing, etc. If you attend local parishes you will find that there is a constant need for financial resources in order to maintain what the parishes are currently doing. Most dioceses are not "wealthy" (as a whole) and the larger, more affluent parishes carry a heavier burden to help those who cannot sustain themselves. Additionally, the Church is constantly involved in countless works to help the poor and needy, etc. I'm not sure how you can quantify all of this and say the Church is disproportionately using its funds. From where I sit, the Church is trying to do an awful lot with a relatively small amount. It should also be noted that the Church's highest priority is (or should be) to meet the spiritual needs of people. We certainly want to do what we can to help supply the physical needs of people but our ultimate goal is to lead people to God. We should not think of the spiritual goals of the Church as contradictory to meeting the physical needs of people.
4. The Church modifies or changes the rules it uses to govern itself as the need arises. On pedophilia, the Church has always taught against this but the rules that it has used to deal with claims of abuse simply were found to be inadequate. The Church has a "Code of Canon Law" that it uses to provide the necessary rules for how it functions. Every large organization must do this in order to make sure that things are done appropriately. Imagine what our city would be like if there were no civil laws. The Church has its own laws that provide direction for priests, bishops, laypersons, etc. These are necessary and important. They are not infallible or unchangeable laws, however. For instance, the rules used to govern primarily rural Catholic communities in the early Middle Ages simply would not work when applied to the modern world or large cities (at least not all of those rules).
5. You write that you can't believe in God because you "can't think of a being like that who just wants people to suffer unless they give in." This is really the saddest part of your comments. I do not believe in a God like that, either. I believe in a God who is infinite goodness and made you to share unending happiness in union with him forever. We bring suffering upon ourselves and others by turning away from the source of our true happiness.0 -
A good read about Morality without God:Clearly, you can be good without God
I have never made the case that only Christianity has morality. What I have consistently argued is that moral reasoning presupposes an objective grounds or basis that imposes moral duty or obligation on the human mind. This is why we can look at the actions or thinking of others and judge it as moral or immoral. If there is no such objective standard or basis, atheist moral judgments are nothing more than subjective feelings or wishes and have no binding force on anyone. Whether one is a Christian or not, you can agree that moral principles are rooted in a supreme Mind (God). If someone denies such a supreme basis, you cannot justify moral judgments of others or other acts or cultures. An atheist is doing all of this but claim there is no God. I'm saying atheists have no grounds for doing that. You might argue that you just assert moral judgments and don't need a rational basis for them but I'm not sure how you will answer a Stalin or Hitler that choose to establish a new "morality."
Again........I've never argued that ony Christianity has morality. Does that make sense?
And no one is saying that Christians can't be good people either. But once again, the fallacy that morality comes from God or the supernatural is not only unprovable, but improbable simply by stating the already stated absence of moral laws against slavery genocide, and rape. You have countered this by saying that morality is known innately through a supernatural influence like a God. But that is why these debates never work. Because there is always an theory, excuse, that has no basis in reality and no scripture to directly back it up.
Secondly, I think that the moral foundation of Christianity is shakey at best. Seems to me that it has convinced people that their humanity itself is a disease, and Jesus is the only cure, which sounds hucksterish IMO. Besides, as an atheist, if I do wrong, fine, if I do right, fine. But what I don't have the option of doing, and what we have seen for 2000 years of christianity is that people who commit from the most minor to most major off offenses against humanity by rationalizing it with scripture. But when they can't rationalize it, they always have the fall back position of their invisible friend who forgives them as long as they ask. It is a moral weakness.
So as far as Thomas Aquinas, Hitler, Stalin, or any other religious or non-religious person...getting the small stuff right like not cheating on your spouse, not being jealous of your neighbor, being respectful is all absolutely meaningless if we fail the big stuff like genocides, mass murder, and slavery. Aquinas failes that test for me, because in all of his rightcheousness (sp) he commits the fatal blunder of any fanatic, suggesting that the death of those who disagree is acceptable on moral grounds. In order for humanity, christianity, islam, or judiasm, or any nation to evolve morally is to forget this notion that time forgives evil. It does not. It can not be given a kernal of tolerance. So, in my opinion, justifying past crimes or genocidal speech like this indirectly accomodates and approves of this type of behavior.
Take Hitler for example. Charismatic Leader. Great organizer, inspires loyalty, snappy dresser, great orator. Intelligent on many levels. And yes, I am sure that their were some reasons why he thought was he was doing was just. But just because he said a lot of things and did a lot of things that we all can agree were spot on, it is all ruined by the fact that he was a mass murderer. Hitler is the strongest example I can think of. So yes, I can see how people can say that Thomas Aquinas had several good points and I can deal with anyones standard minor imperfections which we all have, but everything else he ever said on things of minor importance are diminished by the absolute embrace of violence and death to people who didn't agree with him.
And in closing, I think Jesus of Nazareth lived, I think he died, and I think he was built up with myth and legend by his followers and given powers accomodate prophecy. Much in the same way St. Nick became Santa.0 -
And no one is saying that Christians can't be good people either. But once again, the fallacy that morality comes from God or the supernatural is not only unprovable, but improbable simply by stating the already stated absence of moral laws against slavery genocide, and rape. You have countered this by saying that morality is known innately through a supernatural influence like a God. But that is why these debates never work. Because there is always an theory, excuse, that has no basis in reality and no scripture to directly back it up.
I don't think this is quite accurate, that is, the nature of moral laws are not quite identical to the moral reality of God. I seriously doubt that the objective morality that is being sought exists as a series of propositional statements contained with the essence of deity. Rather, God is love, and perfect love is the objective reality that we seek. Even Christ indicated that the divorce laws given by Moses were designed to take into account the failings of the people, and were some kind of compromise. The law was imcomplete, and never intended to perfect humanity. Christ was clear that the entire could be summed up into the "Love thy neighber.." indicating that love was the sum of law, and that all our moral duties could be found within there (if we could get past the so called noetic effect of sin, mind you).Secondly, I think that the moral foundation of Christianity is shakey at best. Seems to me that it has convinced people that their humanity itself is a disease, and Jesus is the only cure, which sounds hucksterish IMO.
Rather, humanity has a disease. No one is characterizing humanity as bad, especially as God Himself originally called us "good." I am not here to argue with His assessment.0 -
The "translation" of virgin is assumptive. Again if it were important than "bethulah" would have been used as to not confuse the actual prophecy.I am not sure how that is true?
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin (or young woman) will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
When I look at this, I see that a) something in this verse implies a birth that is a sign, ie is odd enough that it will be recognizable as a message from God. If it is not a vigin birth, than what is the implied sign? b) that whatever is unique about the birth is intended to be a sign, not necessarily a component of process. That is, it was not done because it had to be that way, but because it would be useful for people to see it done that way.
What is unique about Christ is that He is fully God, and that He is fully man. There is nothing in that particular alchemy that requires being born of a virgin. It merely requires that He have a preincarnate, eternal existance and yet also be born a man. I suppose God could just have made Him from the dust like Adam, or attached the "spirit" of Christ to a newly conceived egg of two human parents (a heresy that has actually been around the block), or any of a number of weird alternatives. This particular course, apparently, was the best way in Gods judgment, and certainly the one in line with prophecy. I also consider it dispensable, that is, the loss of it would not undermine my faith. I have several things in Christianity like that (biblical inerrancy is one of the big ones I could let go of, if I had to).
And if you believe the genesis story, then there's probably no logical explanation you would accept.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
But not good enough for god.Clearly, you can be good without God
Absolutely. Just as Christians can do very bad things. I don't think anyone has questioned the fact that atheists can be good people.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
And no one is saying that Christians can't be good people either. But once again, the fallacy that morality comes from God or the supernatural is not only unprovable, but improbable simply by stating the already stated absence of moral laws against slavery genocide, and rape. You have countered this by saying that morality is known innately through a supernatural influence like a God. But that is why these debates never work. Because there is always an theory, excuse, that has no basis in reality and no scripture to directly back it up.
I don't think this is quite accurate, that is, the nature of moral laws are not quite identical to the moral reality of God. I seriously doubt that the objective morality that is being sought exists as a series of propositional statements contained with the essence of deity. Rather, God is love, and perfect love is the objective reality that we seek. Even Christ indicated that the divorce laws given by Moses were designed to take into account the failings of the people, and were some kind of compromise. The law was imcomplete, and never intended to perfect humanity. Christ was clear that the entire could be summed up into the "Love thy neighber.." indicating that love was the sum of law, and that all our moral duties could be found within there (if we could get past the so called noetic effect of sin, mind you).Secondly, I think that the moral foundation of Christianity is shakey at best. Seems to me that it has convinced people that their humanity itself is a disease, and Jesus is the only cure, which sounds hucksterish IMO.
Rather, humanity has a disease. No one is characterizing humanity as bad, especially as God Himself originally called us "good." I am not here to argue with His assessment.
Well I am.
I don't think humanity has a disease and I find the claim to be sickening. Not taking issue withg you personally David, it's a claim made by believers all the time. What you are saying is that we are in essence "born sick and commanded upon pain of endless torture to be well." I take great umbrage at the very idea. If that is the reality of our existence, that we were created imperfect by a perfect being who will then punish us for those imperfections, well I place the blame at his feet. And I say he's far from perfect, he's a child playing a sick game with human lives. I want no part of it.
And if he is love he sure has a funny way of showing it. Punishing me eternally for not worshipping him because it makes no sense using the brain he gave me. Expecting wholehearted belief while refusing to provide any reliable evidence. This is not the behavior of an omnipotent being who cares for his creation. It's the behavior of a mad celestial dictator. I do not believe in the existence of such a thing but even if I were proven to be wrong I would tell this God of yours that to his face.0 -
But not good enough for god.
If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.0 -
But not good enough for god.
If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.
I disagree with that. God (IMHO) does not (could not) need or want anyone's acceptance or approval or service or love. He requires nothing from us. God is fulfilled and complete and happy to allow you to use the free will he gave you. You're destined for Heaven, because he loves you NO MATTER WHAT, and so is everyone else.
Merry Christmas.
0 -
But not good enough for god.
If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.
I accept this. I don't want to spend eternity praising the dear leader so I'm glad to be rid of it. However that does not mean I've signed up for option B, the fire and the torture that never ends part... I reject that as well. My life has more meaning to me than some game.0 -
And no one is saying that Christians can't be good people either. But once again, the fallacy that morality comes from God or the supernatural is not only unprovable, but improbable simply by stating the already stated absence of moral laws against slavery genocide, and rape. You have countered this by saying that morality is known innately through a supernatural influence like a God. But that is why these debates never work. Because there is always an theory, excuse, that has no basis in reality and no scripture to directly back it up.
I don't think this is quite accurate, that is, the nature of moral laws are not quite identical to the moral reality of God. I seriously doubt that the objective morality that is being sought exists as a series of propositional statements contained with the essence of deity. Rather, God is love, and perfect love is the objective reality that we seek. Even Christ indicated that the divorce laws given by Moses were designed to take into account the failings of the people, and were some kind of compromise. The law was imcomplete, and never intended to perfect humanity. Christ was clear that the entire could be summed up into the "Love thy neighber.." indicating that love was the sum of law, and that all our moral duties could be found within there (if we could get past the so called noetic effect of sin, mind you).Secondly, I think that the moral foundation of Christianity is shakey at best. Seems to me that it has convinced people that their humanity itself is a disease, and Jesus is the only cure, which sounds hucksterish IMO.
Rather, humanity has a disease. No one is characterizing humanity as bad, especially as God Himself originally called us "good." I am not here to argue with His assessment.
Yes, but I cannot get past the part where if I turn down your gods perfect love, I burn in hell for eternity. The addition of this veiled threat, or the reward of heaven doesn't speak of aquiring love, it smacks with blind obedience. But I guess this is the fundamental problem I have with the abrahamic religions, the disease you mentioned, was knowledge of good and evil. I cannot get behind a religion that thinks that the original sin of all mankind, passed down to the innocent by their ancestors (evil) is seeking knowledge. Besides, the story is ridiculous in nature to begin with.
The most powerful creator in the whole universe puts two people in a garden that just happens to have a demonic serpent in it? And why even put that tree in the garden to temp mankind. But then again, how could Gods perfect man and woman disobey the lord when they themselves have know knowledge and are incapable of sinning yet? Seems to me that God's first commandment, don't eat from this tree, was violated rather quickly to a being he had just made in his perfect image. Strange. I could go on forever with this stuff, but it is pointless. What isn't pointless is the fact that there is a false assumption that Jesus was the first to tell people to be good to eachother. That is just wrong. Plenty of other religions have made the same case, and similar laws. As I have stated earlier, all you have to do is look at the words of the abrahamic God, the lack of details, the lack of important rules and how cultures and civilizations have prospered without them, or see how Christian societies have deemed things morally reprehensible not based on what is said in the bible, but with an evolving morality developed with empathy and intelligence.0 -
If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.I disagree with that. God (IMHO) does not (could not) need or want anyone's acceptance or approval or service or love. He requires nothing from us. God is fulfilled and complete and happy to allow you to use the free will he gave you. You're destined for Heaven, because he loves you NO MATTER WHAT, and so is everyone else.
Merry Christmas.
Oh, I'm not claiming to know who will and won't be in heaven. I just find it interesting that some atheists get upset at the notion of not being good enough for God. That really doesn't make sense to me when atheists don't believe in God anyway. That's what I meant to say. I have no doubt in God's mercy!0 -
But not good enough for god.If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.I accept this. I don't want to spend eternity praising the dear leader so I'm glad to be rid of it. However that does not mean I've signed up for option B, the fire and the torture that never ends part... I reject that as well. My life has more meaning to me than some game.
But isn't it fair to say that you don't believe in any kind of eternal life? You don't believe in God or heaven, so you don't really believe in an eternity of fire and torture, either. Right?0 -
But the focus is on the poor and uneducated. Why not focus all that energy on places that already have established religions? If the instruction is spread it, then why is the middle east not predominantly a target?Growing up catholic (my parents still are very devout), going to a catholic school, and even having to attend catechism for first communion, confirmation, etc. I've really shunned the way that catholicism works so much on proselytizing people around the world, especially the poor and uneducated. When it comes to community, helping the needy, providing academics, etc. I think it's great. But the religion makes up so many of it's own doctrines and sacraments with many not even having relevance to the bible, it's sad. The church has billions of dollars yet most of the money is spent on proselyzing rather than helping. Better to build a church than a shelter. The pope can make up an new "law" (the most recent I believe was against pedophilia) and catholics are bound by it. It's especially maddening when abortion is not allowed, yet neither is contraception.
Anyway, I know many good people who are catholic. I know many good people who are agnostic and atheist. I also know many good people who are Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, Pagan, etc. And I can truly say that I don't believe in god because I can't think of a being like that who justs wants people to suffer unless they give in. Sounds very narcisstic and that's a human element. It makes much more sense that the bible (and most religious books) were written by men for men.
I'm sure you're a great person and kind and generous, but I don't attribute that to a god you follow. I attribute it to you just being a good human.
I'm sorry to hear that your Catholic upbringing provided you with such a poor perspective on the Church and its teachings. Have you heard of the new video series and book by Fr. Barron? I think it is called "Catholicism." It is well done and I think it provides a much more balanced picture of the Church and what it is all about. I can address your various comments but each comment requires a fair amount of explanation so what I write will probably not be sufficient (and Brett urges me to keep my comments brief). Here are just a few thoughts:
1. The Church wants to bring the good new of Jesus to all people because that is what Jesus instructed us to do (Matthew 28:19). We believe the Gospel of Jesus is a wonderful treasure that brings hope and happiness to the human family and that God works through this Good News to accomplish his purposes. For the Church to not focus on missionary work would be to fail to respond to Christ's command and fail in her mission.
Mass is a repetitive ritual (basically the same EVERYTIME with the exception of sermon) and I'm sure you've read in the bible about repetitive verses.2. I think everything in the Catholic Church is rooted in the Bible and grows out of reflection on the Bible. This is certainly true with respect to the sacraments. I'm reading a good book right now on the Mass, for instance, called, "A Biblical Walk through the Mass." It shows how everything we say and do in the Mass is reflected in and grounded upon the Bible.
I'm sorry let me elaborate. The VATICAN has billions of dollars. The amount of gold hoarded there could really help an actual nation. But the purpose there is to recruit more nuns and priests and not really to assist in the helpless and poor. That's left up to the parishes.3. I'm not sure if it is fair to say the Church has "billions of dollars" and spends most of it on proselytizing, etc. If you attend local parishes you will find that there is a constant need for financial resources in order to maintain what the parishes are currently doing. Most dioceses are not "wealthy" (as a whole) and the larger, more affluent parishes carry a heavier burden to help those who cannot sustain themselves. Additionally, the Church is constantly involved in countless works to help the poor and needy, etc. I'm not sure how you can quantify all of this and say the Church is disproportionately using its funds. From where I sit, the Church is trying to do an awful lot with a relatively small amount. It should also be noted that the Church's highest priority is (or should be) to meet the spiritual needs of people. We certainly want to do what we can to help supply the physical needs of people but our ultimate goal is to lead people to God. We should not think of the spiritual goals of the Church as contradictory to meeting the physical needs of people.
Like other political offices, the church's laws can be manipulated to protect wrongdoers in "executive" positions. I don't think anyone can deny that.4. The Church modifies or changes the rules it uses to govern itself as the need arises. On pedophilia, the Church has always taught against this but the rules that it has used to deal with claims of abuse simply were found to be inadequate. The Church has a "Code of Canon Law" that it uses to provide the necessary rules for how it functions. Every large organization must do this in order to make sure that things are done appropriately. Imagine what our city would be like if there were no civil laws. The Church has its own laws that provide direction for priests, bishops, laypersons, etc. These are necessary and important. They are not infallible or unchangeable laws, however. For instance, the rules used to govern primarily rural Catholic communities in the early Middle Ages simply would not work when applied to the modern world or large cities (at least not all of those rules).
Why is it sad? If god is responsible for life, then he should be held totally responsible. Children born with defects or dying after short life isn't god's responsibility? That child did NOTHING, but for some reason it's accepted that they were already sinful just because of birth. They NEVER had a chance to prove anything. Of course the church will make up things like Purgatory to explain where these "souls" go.5. You write that you can't believe in God because you "can't think of a being like that who just wants people to suffer unless they give in." This is really the saddest part of your comments. I do not believe in a God like that, either. I believe in a God who is infinite goodness and made you to share unending happiness in union with him forever. We bring suffering upon ourselves and others by turning away from the source of our true happiness.
Suffering is brought on by people in power taking advantage and holding hostage people below them. The catholic church IMO holds it's followers hostage by making up rules and using religion to back them. Of course now followers won't question the pope when told it's god's will.
I can say without hesitation that since I've abandoned faith, my life is so much less complicated. My family is aware of my Atheism and keep "praying for me" (don't know why because apparently god can't change my mind) for me to see the light again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Correct. But what is the reaction of people of religion to Atheists? My observation is that we are viewed a "less" than they are. That's where the problem lies.But not good enough for god.If you choose to reject God, then you don't care about living in eternity with Him anyway.I accept this. I don't want to spend eternity praising the dear leader so I'm glad to be rid of it. However that does not mean I've signed up for option B, the fire and the torture that never ends part... I reject that as well. My life has more meaning to me than some game.
But isn't it fair to say that you don't believe in any kind of eternal life? You don't believe in God or heaven, so you don't really believe in an eternity of fire and torture, either. Right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
My family is aware of my Atheism and keep "praying for me" (don't know why because apparently god can't change my mind) for me to see the light again.
They are praying for you because they love you. You have to remember their belief. If they believe in God and heaven, then they may also believe that atheists will not spend eternity in heaven. That thought is very sad for any Christian, so your family is praying for you because they want to see you in heaven. For those of us who believe, hell is a place we hope no human being ends up spending eternity.0 -
Correct. But what is the reaction of people of religion to Atheists? My observation is that we are viewed a "less" than they are. That's where the problem lies.
Not all Christians feel they are "better" than anyone. Just as not all white people feel they are "better" than black people. You'll have those ignorant ones who think that way, but not all of us. I certainly do not think I'm any better a human being than you are just because I'm Christian and you are not. I hope that nothing I've ever typed made you feel that way. If it has, then I apologize.0 -
But isn't it fair to say that you don't believe in any kind of eternal life? You don't believe in God or heaven, so you don't really believe in an eternity of fire and torture, either. Right?
You're right Patti, I don't believe in it. But when it's described to me I feel the urge to make it clear just how wicked and cruel a proposition I feel this is from those telling me of "God's love." I see very little love in that.
I am only an atheist because there are theists. When the subject of God is no longer a discussion I can embrace just being me, without the necessary group affiliation.0 -
I am only an atheist because there are theists. When the subject of God is no longer a discussion I can embrace just being me, without the necessary group affiliation.
Oh, I totally get that. Like I said, when I'm spending time with my friends who are atheist, we don't "wear a label" either. We're all just people. It's only when the topic comes up that we get into a discussion about our belief/non-belief. I would be remiss, however, in not saying that I do define myself by my belief in God. I am a child of God first and foremost. But that doesn't mean I walk around telling everyonet that, same as you don't walk around telling people you're an atheist.0 -
But isn't it fair to say that you don't believe in any kind of eternal life? You don't believe in God or heaven, so you don't really believe in an eternity of fire and torture, either. Right?
You're right Patti, I don't believe in it. But when it's described to me I feel the urge to make it clear just how wicked and cruel a proposition I feel this is from those telling me of "God's love." I see very little love in that.
I am only an atheist because there are theists. When the subject of God is no longer a discussion I can embrace just being me, without the necessary group affiliation.
This is where things get fuzzy for me, all the believers get upset with us atheists because we are upset that their book, in which they suscribe to as the word of God says that non-believers burn. All of sudden, in what I'm guessing is the spirit of politeness we get, "Well, I'm not God I don't know if he would send you to hell." It's a cop out. I find it difficult to believe that in everything we've talked about, the justifications of every barbaric deed that is done in the bible, we get to the common fact that everyone knows about christian dogma, and all of a sudden the believers are feigning ignorance of Gods law just for politcal correctness and appear to be nice. It's your book, if you are going to defend every other piece of it, don't backout of one of it's core principles because you don't want to look bad.0 -
I am only an atheist because there are theists. When the subject of God is no longer a discussion I can embrace just being me, without the necessary group affiliation.
Oh, I totally get that. Like I said, when I'm spending time with my friends who are atheist, we don't "wear a label" either. We're all just people. It's only when the topic comes up that we get into a discussion about our belief/non-belief. I would be remiss, however, in not saying that I do define myself by my belief in God. I am a child of God first and foremost. But that doesn't mean I walk around telling everyonet that, same as you don't walk around telling people you're an atheist.
And I get you Patti. I take issue only with your beliefs, and not to such an extent that you and I can't politely relate to one another. I won't ever try to silence you and I'd hope for the same respect in kind. That's really the best we're going to do here. Even I can't imagine atheists wiping out faith and I bet you don't believe everyone in the world is ever going to be Catholic. So it's crucial that we all learn a way to get along with our respective differences.
I support your right to believe however you would like, provided that it not impede my desire to live a free life without harming others. I think we achieve this through a secular society that supports the right of religious freedom. The only way we'll ever know who was "right" is after death, so let's save it until then.0 -
Then they are praying for "influence" on me. If that's the case, then free will goes out the door right? This is part of the control I speak of. Causing fear in people (when there's really no evidence to show a place exists) will get them to follow.
They are praying for you because they love you. You have to remember their belief. If they believe in God and heaven, then they may also believe that atheists will not spend eternity in heaven. That thought is very sad for any Christian, so your family is praying for you because they want to see you in heaven. For those of us who believe, hell is a place we hope no human being ends up spending eternity.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Patti can you honestly say that you don't feel "sorry" for non believers? Your belief is that we are missing out, so though you may not say it, in your head and mind you feel you're one up on us. Again, that doesn't mean you're not a good person, discriminating, etc. but there is a feeling of superiority because of your faith over those who are non believers. And it's not just you. All religions are this way which is why there is so much argumentation about who's god is the real god.Not all Christians feel they are "better" than anyone. Just as not all white people feel they are "better" than black people. You'll have those ignorant ones who think that way, but not all of us. I certainly do not think I'm any better a human being than you are just because I'm Christian and you are not. I hope that nothing I've ever typed made you feel that way. If it has, then I apologize.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??0
-
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??
Because they either believe it and won't admit it in mixed company, or they don't believe it and become what other Christians deem "cafeteria" christians, where they just pick and choose the parts of biblical law they like and discard what they don't like.0 -
Why is it that believers like to throw out the 'You're not reading it in context' argument when it's a part of the Bible that comes across as horrendous, but when it's something that supports their opinion then suddenly the way the passage is written doesn't need to be twisted to fit a 'context' ??
Because they either believe it and won't admit it in mixed company, or they don't believe it and become what other Christians deem "cafeteria" christians, where they just pick and choose the parts of biblical law they like and discard what they don't like.
That's another thing that irritates me----the Bible Buffet people. It's not a flipping salad bar. If people want to say that the Bible is 100% the inerrant word of God, that means ALL OF IT. But suddenly, when things like Slavery, treatment of women, etc are brought up, the argument is always 'well we don't go by that stuff anymore because JESUS.' Well then the Bible ISN'T 100% inerrant if things are going to change.
That said, if God is all-knowing and all powerful, wouldn't he KNOW that times would change and the Bible might need some 'updating?' Or wouldn't he know that people were going to be sinful? If he knew that humans were going to be sinful, then that's because of how he created them in the first place. So why would humans need 'Jesus' by behaving just the way that god made them to begin with?
Or wouldn't he know that Eve would have eaten the fruit? If he knew all that, why would he need to put the talking serpent in the garden to begin with, if he knew what she would do? It all makes no sense. Hell, if I'm suddenly wrong and there IS a god, then he would know I wouldn't believe in him long before I came to that conclusion. And if everybody is 'god-made' then the skeptics were MADE skeptical in their personalities, but will be punished for being skeptical. Hm...0
This discussion has been closed.