• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Inconsistencies of religious dogma...

Sadescha

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
57
Stu note: this has been split from the "Prayer Works thread, as it digressed a weensy bit...

PaZZa said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4081276.stm

realy makes you want to pray doesnt it?

Who is the true devil, the imaginery one with horns or the one telling the third world NOT to prevent the spread of aids?

I may be many things (and im sure called many more), but im happy im not a christian.

Agggh! That is so infuriating.

What I don't understand is why so many good Christians don't seem to stand up and holler as loud as all the asswipes to let everyone know that these people are wrong.

Fidelity and chastity won't stop you getting AIDS if you're raped, or get bad blood from a transfusion, or share a needle or a razerblade with an infected person :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
Sadescha said:
PaZZa said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4081276.stm

realy makes you want to pray doesnt it?

Who is the true devil, the imaginery one with horns or the one telling the third world NOT to prevent the spread of aids?

I may be many things (and im sure called many more), but im happy im not a christian.

Agggh! That is so infuriating.

What I don't understand is why so many good Christians don't seem to stand up and holler as loud as all the asswipes to let everyone know that these people are wrong.

Fidelity and chastity won't stop you getting AIDS if you're raped, or get bad blood from a transfusion, or share a needle or a razerblade with an infected person :roll: :roll: :roll:

Only a fool believes condoms will stop the spread of aids 100% (after all their not majic), however unprotected sex is responsible for the majority of the spread, i forget where i read the statistics, im sure someone will find it though :)

And i agree with this "Agggh! That is so infuriating.", a small piece of very cheap rubber (are they made from rubber still?) can save 1000s of lives and the biggest religion in the world is against them. So very, very infuriating!
 
PaZZa said:
Only a fool believes condoms will stop the spread of aids 100% (after all their not majic), however unprotected sex is responsible for the majority of the spread, i forget where i read the statistics, im sure someone will find it though :)

Of course there's still a small chance of getting it even when using condoms, but it's certainly a heck of a lot better than using none at all.

It's also sad the number of children born there with the disease.

The church's stance on condoms is putting people at risk, shamelessly, and they're patting themselves on the back for being so holy. It's disgusting. :cry:
 
...while at the same time the Vatican approves of Viagra and related remedies. :roll:
 
wow, someone actually agrees with me, so now do I win a blue peter badge, crackerjack pencil, or blankety-blank cheque-book and pen, or something! :)
 
Leaferne said:
...while at the same time the Vatican approves of Viagra and related remedies. :roll:

nothing wrong with Viagra, especially if you dont need it ;)
 
PaZZa said:
wow, someone actually agrees with me, so now do I win a blue peter badge, crackerjack pencil, or blankety-blank cheque-book and pen, or something! :)

Ermmm.... How about a trebochet and a toilet?
 
Sadescha said:
PaZZa said:
wow, someone actually agrees with me, so now do I win a blue peter badge, crackerjack pencil, or blankety-blank cheque-book and pen, or something! :)

Ermmm.... How about a trebochet and a toilet?

This is a first for me, so ANYTHING will do to commemorate the occasion, except a blow on the head or course :)
 
Leaferne said:
...while at the same time the Vatican approves of Viagra and related remedies. :roll:

The cynic in me says that they approve of viagra because it can help make babies, but disaprove of condoms because it's birth control and prevents babies. That's the only thing I can think of.

Me, I'm not having babies, so they can suck my big toe ;)
 
PaZZa said:
Sadescha said:
PaZZa said:
wow, someone actually agrees with me, so now do I win a blue peter badge, crackerjack pencil, or blankety-blank cheque-book and pen, or something! :)

Ermmm.... How about a trebochet and a toilet?

This is a first for me, so ANYTHING will do to commemorate the occasion, except a blow on the head or course :)

Well, you can use it to see how big a hole you can knock in the Vatican ;)
 
Sadescha said:
Leaferne said:
...while at the same time the Vatican approves of Viagra and related remedies. :roll:

The cynic in me says that they approve of viagra because it can help make babies, but disaprove of condoms because it's birth control and prevents babies. That's the only thing I can think of.

Me, I'm not having babies, so they can suck my big toe ;)

Of course, using contraception DOESNT make any more good little catholics.
 
PaZZa said:
Sadescha said:
The cynic in me says that they approve of viagra because it can help make babies, but disaprove of condoms because it's birth control and prevents babies. That's the only thing I can think of.

Me, I'm not having babies, so they can suck my big toe ;)

Of course, using contraception DOESNT make any more good little catholics.

If I were Catholic, and forced to have kids, I'd raise them to be Satanists just to be an annoying git :p
 
It's getting a little heated. I forgot that religion is one of the taboo public discussion topics.
Anyway, I'm happy in my world - who can deny that to be wrong? Isn't that what every one should be striving for?
 
Sadescha said:
PaZZa said:
Sadescha said:
The cynic in me says that they approve of viagra because it can help make babies, but disaprove of condoms because it's birth control and prevents babies. That's the only thing I can think of.

Me, I'm not having babies, so they can suck my big toe ;)

Of course, using contraception DOESNT make any more good little catholics.

If I were Catholic, and forced to have kids, I'd raise them to be Satanists just to be an annoying git :p

Actually if you where catholic youd raise them to be Catholic (otherwise you wouldnt be a Catholic lol). After years of mass, sunday school and general indoctrination my parents failed with both myself and my brother, so you can break the programming!

I always considered if I was to be a christian "the church of christ psychopath" was interesting, they believe in christ the warrior and where somewhat dangerous.
 
Chips said:
It's getting a little heated. I forgot that religion is one of the taboo public discussion topics.
Anyway, I'm happy in my world - who can deny that to be wrong? Isn't that what every one should be striving for?

and of course you are correct :)

Can i stop foaming at the mouth now?
 
PaZZa said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4081276.stm

realy makes you want to pray doesnt it?

Who is the true devil, the imaginery one with horns or the one telling the third world NOT to prevent the spread of aids?

I may be many things (and im sure called many more), but im happy im not a christian.

Here's an interesting thought: What if, rather than the story we all know about Lucifer trying to sieze power in Heaven and being cast down to Hell, he was the original, belevolant creator and God rose up and siezed power. He then tried to stop Adam and Eve eatint the fruit of knowledge, but Lucifer managed to convince them to do it anyway. This led to them being able to start the human race properly, and escape from the garden of Eden. Until Jesus, God was all fire and brimstone so maybe the events of 2000 years ago were some sort of revolution in the heaven/hell dimension and we are now enjoying the liberation of having a God who made us and loves us.

The above paragraph was made up as I went along (i have had the idea of 'what if the devil is actually good, but just got bad press' in my head for a while but this is the first time I have expanded on it), so there may be some inconsistancies or plain stupid bits but my point is that even if the Bible is God's word, we only have His word on it. 1985 and rewriting history springs to mind.
 
jaloopa said:
Here's an interesting thought: What if, rather than the story we all know about Lucifer trying to sieze power in Heaven and being cast down to Hell, he was the original, belevolant creator and God rose up and siezed power. He then tried to stop Adam and Eve eatint the fruit of knowledge, but Lucifer managed to convince them to do it anyway. This led to them being able to start the human race properly, and escape from the garden of Eden. Until Jesus, God was all fire and brimstone so maybe the events of 2000 years ago were some sort of revolution in the heaven/hell dimension and we are now enjoying the liberation of having a God who made us and loves us..

That is a very interesting piece of thinking, i can feel a call of cthulhu campaign coming on, i just have to steal your idea :)
 
Go for it. But remember, that type of paranod thought could lead to madness if you decide you can't even trust the supreme power of the Universe
 
jaloopa said:
Here's an interesting thought: What if, rather than the story we all know about Lucifer trying to sieze power in Heaven and being cast down to Hell, he was the original, belevolant creator and God rose up and siezed power. He then tried to stop Adam and Eve eatint the fruit of knowledge, but Lucifer managed to convince them to do it anyway. This led to them being able to start the human race properly, and escape from the garden of Eden. Until Jesus, God was all fire and brimstone so maybe the events of 2000 years ago were some sort of revolution in the heaven/hell dimension and we are now enjoying the liberation of having a God who made us and loves us.

The above paragraph was made up as I went along (i have had the idea of 'what if the devil is actually good, but just got bad press' in my head for a while but this is the first time I have expanded on it), so there may be some inconsistancies or plain stupid bits but my point is that even if the Bible is God's word, we only have His word on it. 1985 and rewriting history springs to mind.

I have often said that if I were a Christian, I would be a maltheist- a believer that god was evil.

The way I see it is:

Lucifer- bringer of light. Light is often assocated with knowledge or learning (and darkness with ignorance, fear, oppression, i.e. the Dark Ages)

The serpent is viewed by many people as being intelligent and cunning- we even use the depictions of two entwined serpents on our medical seal

Lucifer presented himself as a serpent- he convinced Eve to eat the fruit, thus breaking her bondage to an oppressive god who wanted to keep them ignorant and in bondage to his whim. Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit as well, freeing him.

So, my take on the issue is that if the Bible is true, then Lucifer is the one that freed us from bondage and gave us knowledge, and that God is an evil SOB who has been punishing us ever since.

I have read about similar views years after I thought it up, so I'm not the only nutter.
 
I think it makes a lot of sense. What kind of god but an evil one would want to stop His people from knowing the difference between good and evil??
 
jaloopa said:
Go for it. But remember, that type of paranod thought could lead to madness if you decide you can't even trust the supreme power of the Universe

Im thinking if a war betweeen the "good" religions like christianity etc. and diabalists and various "evil" underground religions with overtones of the devil being the original good guy and wanting his status back, returning god to where he originally came from (in the beginning was the word and the word was satan, thats kinda thing) with cthulhu cultists exploiting the battle so to let the great old ones back (as they always do).

not offence to any religious ppl, call of cthulhu is just a tabletop rpg.

:) happy happy joy joy
 
Sadescha said:
Lucifer- bringer of light. Light is often assocated with knowledge or learning (and darkness with ignorance, fear, oppression, i.e. the Dark Ages)

The serpent is viewed by many people as being intelligent and cunning- we even use the depictions of two entwined serpents on our medical seal

Lucifer presented himself as a serpent- he convinced Eve to eat the fruit, thus breaking her bondage to an oppressive god who wanted to keep them ignorant and in bondage to his whim. Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit as well, freeing him.

So, my take on the issue is that if the Bible is true, then Lucifer is the one that freed us from bondage and gave us knowledge, and that God is an evil SOB who has been punishing us ever since.

I have read about similar views years after I thought it up, so I'm not the only nutter.

this is all useful stuff, keep it coming :)
 
jaloopa said:
Here's an interesting thought: What if, rather than the story we all know about Lucifer trying to sieze power in Heaven and being cast down to Hell, he was the original, belevolant creator and God rose up and siezed power. He then tried to stop Adam and Eve eatint the fruit of knowledge, but Lucifer managed to convince them to do it anyway. This led to them being able to start the human race properly, and escape from the garden of Eden. Until Jesus, God was all fire and brimstone so maybe the events of 2000 years ago were some sort of revolution in the heaven/hell dimension and we are now enjoying the liberation of having a God who made us and loves us.

The above paragraph was made up as I went along (i have had the idea of 'what if the devil is actually good, but just got bad press' in my head for a while but this is the first time I have expanded on it), so there may be some inconsistancies or plain stupid bits but my point is that even if the Bible is God's word, we only have His word on it. 1985 and rewriting history springs to mind.

Ever hear of Gnosticism? This is pretty much what Christian Gnostics believed nearly 2000 years ago: that the True God (and Father of Jesus Christ) was not the creator - whom they called the "demiurge." The individual human soul was a shard of light from the Divine Spirit. But since matter was intrinsically bad (as opposed to spirit which was good - note the radical dualism), it was believed that our little sparks of light were trapped inside physical bodies - the work of the demiurge. Jesus came to give us the secret knowledge (hence the term "gnostic") of how to become freed of this physical universe and rejoin the divine light.

That's an oversimplification. Anyway, the over-emphasis in Catholicism on suffering is likely to have stemmed from its early insistence on Christ's suffering as proof that Jesus Christ was truly human as well as divine. Since the Gnostics believed that physical matter was evil, God could not be tainted by it - which would happen in an actual incarnation - so Jesus was often thought of as (a) an ordinary person who was temporarily possessed by the spirit of Christ, who departed conveniently just moments before the crucifixion, leaving the poor schmuck Jesus to do all the suffering; or (b) having only appeared to have suffered - or anything else involving physicality, I suppose. The Church fought this bizarre twist on its nascent faith by going too far the other way, and overemphasizing the suffering.

Anyway, I've been away from these boards too long, so I had a lot of catching up to do with this incredibly interesting thread, so I apologize that this will be a long post. :)

Something that never comes up in these kinds of discussions where one side typically digs their heels in and says, "I was brought up such-and-such and saw through it as a child/had a bad experience/found out something I was told wasn't true; and therefore there is obviously no God..." and the other side digs in their heels and says, "God exists, but you can't know that unless you believe, and the Bible is 100% true and inspired, and I know because of my experience..." - what never comes up is what do we really mean by this "God" who either does or doesn't exist?

Our traditional notion is of some guy "out there" who's a being, much like us, but a much bigger, stronger, better being - maximally so, to use a word philosophers of religion like to banter about.

For those of you who "saw through" religion as a child (which means even as a child you were far more intellectually advanced than most religious adults, right?) let me recommend that you tackle Paul Tillich or John Macquarrie (specifically the latter's "Principles of Christian Theology"). Tillich was Lutheran, MacQuarrie Anglican. You might be surprised at what you find there: God is not a being alongside other beings; God is Being-Itself (MacQuarrie) or "the Ground of our Being" (Tillich). The emphasis is on the difficulty we humans have talking about something so basic as Being Itself - hence the mythological language of the Bible (and other religions' texts).

If that's still not good enough for you (MacQuarrie in particular is strangely orthodox, although fundies hate him), try John A.T. Robinson or John Shelby Spong - two more popular authors whose names you probably already know and whose ideas you may already be familiar with.

Then get back with us and tell us how the question "Does God exist?" even makes sense, let alone how you can answer it "No."

This has been a tangent for sure, and this part of our discussion probably belongs (and has been covered) on the Religions board, but it is part of the groundwork for believing anything about prayer at all.

I'm just always mystified how on these boards it seems if someone says, "There was a loud crashing sound in my kitchen" people have no problem jumping to the conclusion "It's a ghost!" or "It's a poltergeist!" But someone claims to have experienced healing as a result of prayer (regardless of what religion) and people say, "Oh, there's obviously some natural explanation."

I prefer to avoid dualism, myself, so I'm not very fond of the natural/supernatural dichotomy - as it seems most people here also reject, and only use those terms as a last resort when something can't fully (yet) be described.

If we accept God to be the Ground of our Being, or Being-Itself (which, as MacQuarrie rightly points out is not impersonal, but rather suprapersonal, which means that while it's not entirely accurate to speak of God in personal terms, God is certainly not less than personal - i.e., an object - so until we evolve to the point where we can better speak of such things, we often must resort to personal metaphors for God), then several other problems brought up on this thread resolve:

--If God is Being-Itself - or to use classical language, infinite - then it makes no sense whatsoever to say God has "bigger fish to fry" than to worry about our little insignificant lives. The only reason President Bush doesn't have time to answer my emails I send him (in protest, usually) is not that he's too important or too busy, primarily, but that he's finite. God is not finite. God can be important and busy, although those terms are metaphors when applied to God; but God is not finite. God has equal "time" and "attention" (metaphors again!) for my smallest concerns as well as for the big picture.

--As our Muslim friends say, "There is no God but God." A multiplicity of gods might be the way some have understood the revelation of God they had in their time and cultural context; but God is One. So it makes no sense to pit the Christian God against the Muslim God against the Jewish God against... you get the picture. Whoever worships God worships the One God, or no god at all. The great sin of idolatry is precisely making a god out of what is not God - raising beings to the level of Being-Itself, as if they were more important and worthy of our adoration.

--Spirituality and religion are much more organic than we might have been taught in Sunday School (or equivalent). God is radically transcendant, but also radically immanent. God isn't some country-club bouncer judging us to determine whether or not "he" will let us in the club. God is not so radically other that God might not be able to communicate with us - e.g., the person who was told the goddess was speaking to him/her and s/he was turning his/her back (sorry for not having time to look up the exact post) - God can communicate with each and every one of us - and indeed does. That's how we know that some snake oil some charlatan is trying to sell us isn't the real deal. More likely, the way God communicates with Joe Blow isn't going to be the way God communicates with you, so you'll reject what Joe says, and Joe will think you've missed out on The Truth, or on God. That's not to say all of us are fully in tune with God - in fact, most of us usually aren't. But none of us are completely severed from contact with God either. If you exist, it's because you have your being through Being-Itself (duh).

So take the great advice someone gave above, and find the way that you need to open to God where you are, at your point of need, or at the place you're joyful or thankful - what you love about life equally as much as what you might hate about it. Prayer is NOT asking God for things as if God were reduced to Santa Claus. Prayer is communion with the One in whom we have our being. So don't be put off if your request isn't "answered;" it's the relationship that matters. It's the orientation of our being toward Being-Itself, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I'm turning into something of a mystic. To show all my cards, I was raised in a fundie charismatic church, but I'm now an Episcopalian, about to start seminary this fall. :) I'm a fully committed Christian, signed on 100% to the Nicene Creed - but that doesn't mean I'm going to be so arrogant as to believe that God hasn't spoken to others in other ways. God isn't limited by our creeds. The analogy of the Spirit to wind is a good one - as Jesus said, "The wind blows where it will." Which pisses off a lot of people who want to control it, eh? ;)
 
zede said:
For those of you who "saw through" religion as a child (which means even as a child you were far more intellectually advanced than most religious adults, right?)

This supposed to be sarcastic? I'll assume not, as otherwise my ire might be raised.

Perhaps I should explain what I meant (as I am the one who brought it up).

As a child, I was forcefed Southern Babtist propaganda from birth. I was forced to go to church by my grandparents on both sides of my lineage. I hated it, even as a child. I *never* ever believed in anything they spoke about in Sunday School or during the adult's ceremony. I didn't feel any of it was real with either my heart or soul. I only parroted back what they told me I should believe.

Despite not fully believing it, I did internalise quite a lot of it. As a child, I fully believed that women had one fewer rib than men. I believed the world was a few thousand years old and created at the snap of a finger. Believed that prayer would be answered. Somewhere along the line, I also gained the belief that women were the cause of all evil in the world as it's a woman who frecked up Edan and got us kicked out and made us all suffer. (I think there must have been a lot of underlying mysogany and woman-hating going on there for me to pick up on something like that, but I can't pinpoint at which point I started believing it.)

The "loss of my faith" which was fear-instilled rather than true, came about as I learned more about science, read books on my own, and explored the world. I found myself pondering many of the logical inconsistancies in what I'd been taught. My faith kind of faded away as I thought "hmm, well, I've never felt there was a god watching me, and all these things they told me aren't really true."

Was I far smarter than religious adult? I don't think so. I think I had a more critical and open mind, a curiosity that led me to question things. No one else in my family to my knowledge has ever questioned their faith- they just follow it like blind sheep and want everyone else to, as well. My lack of faith slowly evolved over time- is still evolving, really- away from "they lied to me" to "the god concept doesn't even make any sense anyway."

Then get back with us and tell us how the question "Does God exist?" even makes sense, let alone how you can answer it "No."

Sounds remarkably like "go read this'ere book and then you'll be a True Believer (tm)." Nope, not gonna play that game. Been there, done that, not interested in a re-hash. I've been questioning myself for the last 12-odd years, reading and speaking to people, and analysing. There is no book you can give me that would turn my skeptical heart into a Christian. (No, that's not closed-mindedness, that's just a fact. I have already thought about it, and despite constantly being given "what about this" examples, my lack of belief in a god only gets stronger.)

I'm just always mystified how on these boards it seems if someone says, "There was a loud crashing sound in my kitchen" people have no problem jumping to the conclusion "It's a ghost!" or "It's a poltergeist!" But someone claims to have experienced healing as a result of prayer (regardless of what religion) and people say, "Oh, there's obviously some natural explanation."

I don't think I act in this way, as I like to try reasonable explanations as to what something could be, but maybe you're just not seeing the proper perspective here.

Myself, I am more inclined to believe "it's a ghost" because I have experienced such things (or, believe I have, at the very least). The manifestation of energy into a tangible object or sound is not beyond the realm of reality, in my opinion.

But, a leg growing six inches in a matter of seconds.... As I don't believe in miracles, and have never personally experienced such a phenomenon, I am disinclined to believe it on face-value. That sort of thing happening would take a tremendous amount of energy for converting blood, bone, sinew, tendons, muscle, so on and so forth into a working, proper leg.... That's a bit farther out of the realm of reality that I personally think is possible.

Even if a straight atheist came along and claimed such a thing without attributing a god to it, I still wouldn't believe it.

If God is Being-Itself ... infinite ...

This presupposes that god IS infinite. This is not a belief shared by many, not even necessarily most, people. This is making an assumption as to the nature of an infinite being.

But, if god were infinite, that would include the proclivity for evil and other nasty things. Which most people claim god isn't. Which means he's not infinite as infinity would include the most vile acts of inhumanity as well as the most noble acts of altruism.

A multiplicity of gods might be the way some have understood the revelation of God they had in their time and cultural context; but God is One. So it makes no sense to pit the Christian God against the Muslim God against the Jewish God against... you get the picture.

Then god has multiple personality disorder and is quite delusional. Most pagans would likely also argue this point with you. Polytheists do not believe that your god is their god wearing different make-up, and would be offended at the suggestion.

I also find it hard to believe that the god of Little Johhny that tells him to kill baby animals is the same god as the god of Little Suzie that tells her to give food to the hungry. I'm just not buying it. (Please, no cop-out that Little Johnny's god isn't the "One True God" because you don't know that.)

The great sin of idolatry is precisely making a god out of what is not God - raising beings to the level of Being-Itself, as if they were more important and worthy of our adoration.

And your omniscience gives you the authority to claim that one's god is not the One True God?

I have my own little "personal god" so to speak, something I am not quite sure of and which I only claim as a sort of comfort rather than a true belief. How do YOU know that this being is the One True God, or just an idol imposter trying to lead me astray? You don't.

God isn't some country-club bouncer judging us to determine whether or not "he" will let us in the club. God is not so radically other that God might not be able to communicate with us - e.g., the person who was told the goddess was speaking to him/her and s/he was turning his/her back (sorry for not having time to look up the exact post) - God can communicate with each and every one of us - and indeed does.

That was me, again. I don't believe that what I experienced was a god, male or female. I can't even recall now what experiences I had related to those people, but I know that upon waking up the following morning everything I had said sounded ridiculous and inane.

I believe that people can go through moving spiritual experiences in a vast array of ways, that don't necessarily equate to an encounter with a god. I had several interactions with "spirit guides" that were very beneficial. I resent that certain people would co-opt my moving and supportive spiritual experiences as proof of their "one true god" speaking to everyone in different ways. My experiences do not relfect any god that I am aware of, and I know that they weren't.

Those two (as there were two beings) lead me to renew my search for a spiritual father- nada, zip, zilch. I looked long and hard and found nothing.

People will tell me I obviously didn't look hard enough, but I just laugh. They don't know how I looked or how much energy I expended in the looking.

And to suggest that a mere book would solve all my god-related problems when I couldn't solve themself after spending half a life-time looking is absurd.

That's not to say all of us are fully in tune with God - in fact, most of us usually aren't. But none of us are completely severed from contact with God either. If you exist, it's because you have your being through Being-Itself (duh).

You keep presenting your beliefs as though they were proven fact, something I try not to do.

What if I told you that you WERE god. That god is not outside you, but permeates every fiber of your being? What if I told you that the entirety of existance was god, the very fabric of the universe is one vast living organism, and all planets and stars resides within its body, and we humans are mere virii floating through its intestines? And that because you are intimately and thoroughly a part OF this god-verse, that you, yourself, were also a god? That you have the power to change and focus matter to do your bidding?

Sounds a bit hocus-pocus, doesn't? And if I told you that this is MY vision of god, would you say "oh yeah, sure, because god looks different to all of us?" Nevermind that our visions of god are so radically different as to be totally in opposition to each other.

No, sorry, I cannot believe in a god that presents itself in ways that are so diametrically opposed to each other as to be utterly incomprehensible.

Whew, and now I really need bed. It takes too much energy trying to put all the weird crap in my head into a coherant thought :p
 
Bravo Zede and Sadescha. Now we're rockin'.

I find it simplest to punt on the question of God’s existence simply because the term has no standard definition. The existence of a “ground of all being” certainly seems hard to dispute, but a bearded guy on a throne up in heaven??? So I’m interested in the possible properties of the “ground of all being” and of my relationship to it. I find much of value in the basic spiritual principles expressed in Christianity as I understand it, but a whole lot of difficulty with much Christian dogma and a LOT of difficulty with the Church which like any human institution is political and corrupt. I’m not personally interested in stories about which anthropomorphized character created what and who kicked who out of power because it’s all mythology and who the hell could claim to know?

Lopaka wrote:
I don't see that big a gulf between the different takes on the topic posted above. Sadescha ( "I think it is possible that by investing emotion and energy into nudging a certain outcome, we can change things.") and even Pazza ( "or possibly BELIEF that you will heal") seem to acknowledge the possibility of prayer working, irrespective of whether there is 'God' to listen to it or not. Which doesn't sound that different than what sundog is saying. I mean, you're still praying and you're still getting 'results'.
Well maybe…..but I think Sadescha and PazZa were talking about something along the lines of “the power of positive thinking”. And that’s fine as far as it goes but I’m talking about something more than that. I’m talking about prayer as a vehicle for having a relationship and interaction with –(ahem)- “the fundamental creative and organizing principle of the universe which is the root cause of our existence and of life and awareness and spirit, which may or may not have consciousness or intent as we understand it, which may or may not have any particular interest in each of us personally, but which has immense power and subtlety that we would be presumptuous to claim to understand”.

What I think I’ve seen is that it appears one can tap into some aspect of this power and effect significant, beneficial change in lives. It’s not that you get what you want - under what bizarre order of things would we each have the power to dictate events to our liking? (So yeah we all get to experience suffering and loss…sorry, no exceptions…). But - if you try sometimes - you just might find - - you get what you need.
 
Sadescha said:
As a child, I was forcefed Southern Babtist propaganda from birth.

Always happy to meet someone else who beat their inteded programming. A lot of what you have said could have been me typing, i parroted stuff, read words out etc. but believed non of it.

I dont think i ever had a turning point where i lost my faith, i cant think back to where i ever had any, it always seemed silly to me, as a child all these adults who seemed to believe this stuff that I interprited as nothing more then fairy stories.

I always found the "thou shalt not kill" (or however its exactly phrased) hypocritical, to go to church then go home to a sunday dinner of a dead animal, that although had been killed by someone elses hand, still YOU are responsible as YOU are consuming it. I eventually became a vegetarian as a young adult and remained so for 3 years - not for religious reasons but for personal ones. After all "thou shalt not kill" doenst continue "people" it just ends in a full stop, so perhaps its EVERYTHING?

I also found that "god created man in his own image" hard to swallow, what about the handicapped and disabled, whos image are they in, was this gods true image and us "normal" people are not in his image?

My wife has a special needs daughter who is severly autistic and also has downs syndrome, 500 years ago she would have been classed as "possessed by devils" (or maybe even killed as a witch), we have now learned do understand disabilities like these and in a few hundered more im sure we will understand even more things that we still put down as religious. If there was a god why does he allow a child to be born like this" She is 16 years old and has a mental age of 2.


I think this thread has somewhat gone off topic, but religion is always a dodgy subject for most people and one that realy gets me going, to be honest i havent even started!

To anyone that is religious, its nothing personal, its not aimed directly at you (unless your one of these people that knock on our doors bothering people, in which case you dont want to knock on my door, as i know the bible, i have read many books of the bible that where removed in the middle ages and i like to quote bible contradictions, religious god-bothrers are such easy targets to run rings around and realy mess with their heads!)
 
Let me start by saying that we really have to try to step in another's shoes before we make certain comments. I like to think non of us intend to be offensive but really some of things we say would be considered offensive. We are all firm in our convictions, and our convictions are based on experiences, and those experiences are personal. As someone who is interested in the Fortean I learned not to take my experiences and conclusions as end-alls. I can't say just because I never saw a ghost that anyone who has is a liar -- Perhaps its not them but *me*, maybe the limitation is on me, maybe not. We should try to be humble and learn to at least not disrespect what someone else considers sacred...ultimately what is genuinly True does not require polemic, it stands on its own two feet.

I do have opinions on the issue of the Divine, I'll throw my two cents in later...

take care
 
do you live under a bridge?

PaZZa said:
To anyone that is religious, its nothing personal, its not aimed directly at you..

i'm not religious either, but how you can say that when you earlier remarked:-

PaZZa said:
there are no gods, when you understand this you can concentrate on your own life instead of believing in something as realistic as buggs bunny guiding your hand and governing your life.

..sure beats the hell out of me. you said in another thread you don't deliberately try & offend people (never mind your 'disclaimer') do you seriously believe you haven't offended anyone with that? voicing your opinions on why you think religion is bad, if it's done in the right manner no-one gets offended. or at least the damage is minimal. but that one..
 
mods: this thread has gone way off course. could you please split it for those who want to discuss the original subject matter & those who wish to denounce religion (which i'm all for, but it seems to be soley christianity getting a hammering on here. I wonder why)

thanks.
 
Diabolik said:
mods: this thread has gone way off course. could you please split it for those who want to discuss the original subject matter & those who wish to denounce religion (which i'm all for, but it seems to be soley christianity getting a hammering on here. I wonder why)

thanks.

Want to discus Pagans picking and choosing, and co-opting other people's religious figures into their "pantheons?" I'm all for that, too :p I'm not terribly impressed with Paganism or Wicca, and I'll happily bash on them, too :D

We're focusing on Christianity because they are the ones usually doing the praying for people.
 
Back
Top