Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, February 26, 2008

More than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion, according to a new survey of religious affiliation by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Zap

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I didn't leave the Catholic Chrch...it left me.
Damn perverts running the parish till they got caught, then just sent the pervs to another unsuspecting parish.

Check please...I'm outta here.

RAmen

When I go, I attend a Southern Baptist church.

Just once I would love to hear the Pastor say, "it is more important that you attend church regularly empty handed each Sunday, than to not attend at all...God would rather see you worship Him with fellow believers and never give a dime than not come to church at all".

I would love to hear that just once.

But...I never will.

I don't mind giving in church and I think it is a good thing to do. In fact, it is in the Bible and something we should do. Jesus is quoted as saying we should give.

Am I simply justifying my desire to keep my money for myself. I'm not really like that. Money has never been much of a motivator for me. Perhaps that's part of what makes me a Democrat Christian instead of a Republican Christian.

I just don't think money is that important. Since I've never held it in especially high esteem, I don't really see why giving is so critical to my being a good and worthy Christian.

I grew up Baptist, but now I'm in Recovery.

The survey also indicates that the group that had the greatest net gain was the unaffiliated.


Sounds like progress to me.

I didn't leave the Catholic Chrch ...it left me.

Spud feels this way too.

Ever wonder how many people are true believers who actually literally believe in every scrap of dogma they are told and how many are doubtful believers and wot percentage of church going folks do so purely out of a "go with the flow" kinda attitude?

Spud has heard that some folks who are not alcoholics join AA just to have a place to network and form attachments.

Perhaps a lot of people who belong to churches belong to them less from a sense of faith and more from a sense of wanting to belong to what Vonnegut refered to as an "artificial extended family".

This increasingly secular society of ours featured in this article is actually a bit of good news for Spud.

It looks like people are evolving morally faster than the churches can keep up. Good, that may cause some more churches to adopt more inclusive and moral ways and to maybe preach a more peaceful and ecumenical message.

Sweet.

Be Well.

It looks like people are evolving morally faster than the churches can keep up. Good, that may cause some more churches to adopt more inclusive and moral ways and to maybe preach a more peaceful and ecumenical message.

utter bullshit.

religion and churches are going to kill all of us.

-buffalo bob

Spud,

Your post sounds like a question, but I suspect you think you already know why most people go to church.

Actually, from what I've seen, the majority of people who attend Christian churches actually do believe the Gospel.

Where they seem to vary is which verses of the Bible they choose to obey. Which ones do each of us believe are absolute and must be obeyed and which ones can be bent and/or broken relying upon Gods' grace and forgiveness.

I mean, what is a "true believer" anyway?

Bill J: Actually, from what I've seen, the majority of people who attend Christian churches actually do believe the Gospel.

Which one? They contradict each other, you know?

I mean, what is a "true believer" anyway?

Spud always uses the term mockingly to refer to folks who believe each and every last scrap of dogma they are taught who never question that dogma, who simply accept it as unvarnished and indisputable truth.

Even when Spud was a practising Catholic Spud was always a "Cafeteria Catholic" who simply could not make hisself believe in any dogma that ran contrary to common sense or conscience.

Started by believing that sex education and birth control was more moral than "go forth and multiply".

Went onto believe that forced birth was more immoral than trying to make abortion illegal.

Always doubted the concept of
transubstantiation.

Virgin birth? Nu-uh! Celibate Priests? Dumb!

Had difficulty with the easy out of confession too.

Eventually, went on to question the divinity of Christ and finally the existence of God, Hisself.

Spud considers all of that to be a form of moral and intellectual evolution, btw.

Spud stopped believing in God but still believes in Good.

Spud stoped believing in the Devil but knows that Evil exists and always will.

Religion itself and all it's ramifications remain fascinating to Spud the athiest/ recovering Catholic.

But I digress.

Be Well.

religion and churches are going to kill all of us.

-buffalo bob


Posted by one of the biggest whiners of "stop assigning positions to me" individuals.

Funny how the whining really shows the character value of the blog world.

Spud,

Do you believe the increasing acceptance of pornography (the explotation of women for men's gratification) is evolving?

Do you believe the rampid use of drugs and alcohol and the ruining of lives is evolving? Drugs are more commonly used than anything I've ever read about. Young kids are getting into drugs.

Do you believe living utterly self-serving and compassionless towards the weak is evolving?

The biggest reason most people have refused to accept the teachings of Christianity is because it asks (no...it demands) they change and cleanse their heart (and their lives).

So...many people today have decided they know what is best for themselves and just look around.

If you would be honest (I mean really honest) you would see that society is not moving in a positive direction without the concept of self-discipline.

America is NOT the great nation it once was. Sure...it's the best the world has to offer, but the general direction is rudderless these days. We've sold out to $ and the idea that nothing is higher than man. We all have the "right" to do whatever we want. It doesn't work that way.

I think Catholicism has had issues for years (no...centuries). I mean, priests, the Pope, etc.

I agree completely that Christians contradict each other. That doesn't mean, though, that the basic premise of Christianity is false.

As the intelligence of man increases with education the organizations of religion begin to fall.

When the mind is enlightened, the spirit is freed, and the body is no longer required.

Spud,

Do you believe the increasing acceptance of pornography (the explotation of women for men's gratification) is evolving?


Spud thinks that the increasing acceptance of pornography is a form of evolution, yes. Spud thinks the Church's puritanical stance on sex has been so wrongheaded it's scary. Spud puts it down to the fact that Paul was a well known misogynist who tried to cast Eve as the originator of original sin. Sex has a purpose in this world and if pornography is a profane portrayal of the sex act it does not eradicate the truth that it can be a sacred act important to the continuation of a healthy marriage. The other side of the coin has to do with prohibition, which is to say that if you make porn illegal you end up empowering the wrong sort of peple entirely, historically. Prohibitiom simply doesn't work and it's unintended consequences are frequently worse than the thing itself. Spud also believes that prostitution must eventually be legalised as well, of course.

Do you believe the rampant use of drugs and alcohol and the ruining of lives is evolving? Drugs are more commonly used than anything I've ever read about. Young kids are getting into drugs.

Drugs and alcohol should not be used and abused by minors. Neither should sex for that matter. The fact that both Sex and drugs are part of too many kids lifes is not evolution. It is something people should work hard to prevent. That sed, prohibition doesn't work for anyone other than criminal organizations, bent cops and spooks. Law of unintended consequences again. Legalise 'em.

Do you believe living utterly self-serving and compassionless towards the weak is evolving?

Do you believe religious belief is a yardstick of compassion? That there are no self serving Preachers? No compassionate athiests? Wot about prosperity preachers? Can you name a single individual on the planet more self serving and lacking in compassion than Benny Hinn? Creflo Dollar, perhaps?

The biggest reason most people have refused to accept the teachings of Christianity is because it asks (no...it demands) they change and cleanse their heart (and their lives).

So...many people today have decided they know what is best for themselves and just look around.

If you would be honest (I mean really honest) you would see that society is not moving in a positive direction without the concept of self-discipline


Insofar as religion inspires good thoughts and deeds Spud is praise it. Insofar as religion inspired evil thoughts and deeds Spud is decry it.

Society is in many ways moving in a positive direction but along with that evolution there is also a de-evolution going on at the same time.

As the world's population continues to rise and the amount of resources per capita shrink this world becomes a meaner, more desperate place.

America is NOT the great nation it once was. Sure...it's the best the world has to offer, but the general direction is rudderless these days. We've sold out to $ and the idea that nothing is higher than man. We all have the "right" to do whatever we want. It doesn't work that way

Bible sez... "The Love of Money is the Root of all Evil."

Alistair Crowley once sed...

"Do as Thou Wilt and let that be the Whole of Thy Law"

Spud believes in the first one and not in the second one.

I agree completely that Christians contradict each other. That doesn't mean, though, that the basic premise of Christianity is false

Doesn't prove it's true, either.

Be Well.

Spud,

I don't understand how one can believe in "good" and "evil" yet not believe they are opposing forces that intend to shut the other out.

And man is a pawn somewhere in the middle whose role is deciding which "he" will join with.



religion and churches are going to kill all of us.

-buffalo bob

Posted by one of the biggest whiners of "stop assigning positions to me" individuals.

Funny how the whining really shows the character value of the blog world.

POSTED BY MONEYWAR



Indeed

This is exactly what I thought when I read Eb's post.

Assigning a position to Bb and yet sort of staying ambiguous to his own belief.

Ambiguous to his own beliefs, yes for sure, reminds me sometimes of Jeff J. and standing on that fence post never actually making a stand one way or another but sure to negatively be critical if it is slightly left of center.

Eb is very religious but just doesn't like to admit such here now.

I have seen him defend the Catholic Church with a passion, supporting the pedaphiles and the way the church handles them.



I don't understand how one can believe in "good" and "evil" yet not believe they are opposing forces that intend to shut the other out.

And man is a pawn somewhere in the middle whose role is deciding which "he" will join with.
-BILLJOHNSON



Bill why does it have to be on beyond what happens in our own heads.

At one point we believed in a virtuous power of the sun and fear and loathing of the dark.

Why does it require a God and a Devil to justify morality. Are you going to deny you can be a moral person without believing in God?






Ambiguous to his own beliefs, yes for sure, reminds me sometimes of Jeff J.

I completely disagree concerning Jeff.

Jeff is a level man who reasons things out and will tell you flat out when he can see points on both sides of an issue.

Eb in my IMO seems to 'sort of' take positions, or supports others positions and then takes great offense when valid conclusions are drawn.

Zap,

I stand corrected, I for the most part agree with you here.



Jeff is a level man who reasons things out and will tell you flat out when he can see points on both sides of an issue.


Note:

This admission will at no point stop me from breaking his balls adamantly accusing him of being a fence sitter.

Jeff is a level man who reasons things out and will tell you flat out when he can see points on both sides of an issue.

My problem with Jeff is he can and does admit to seeing both sides of the issue but fakes making a decision at the time of the admittance.

On threads later he will again take the side he originally started and one has to show hime the other points all over again. This tells me he really never saw the issue in the first place, just placated to avoid having his stand of thought being scrutinized.

these stats are misleading.

quite alot of people are starting home churches as their churches are failing them in the TRUE WORD.

www.christianhomechurchnetwork
.com


that, and people are sick of the megachurch scene and continue to drop out. we did.



these stats are misleading.

quite alot of people are starting home churches as their churches are failing them in the TRUE WORD.



The stats are missleading followed by "alot" of people are starting home churches.

I guess that's different than changing affiliation.



Nanc

The point of the piece is not about True, false, Left, right, blue or green.

The point is dissatisfaction and change. Your point only supports the piece.




One cynical difference between a megachurch and a home church is the home church is very unlikely to get a tax break.

Yes, I sincerely know that is not what you're looking for.

A LOT of people seem to be getting more wise as the age.

Grown adults should rid themselves of the need to have imaginary friends.

and i continue to wonder whose imaginary friend you are, manypaths.

home churches also have charitable venues - we support many christian and jewish charities, so if need be people can still retain tax breaks.

p.s. organized religion is the downfall of faith. besides, i like to beat the baptists to the buffet on sundays!



p.s. organized religion is the downfall of faith. besides, i like to beat the baptists to the buffet on sundays!


This abandoning of organized religion is a very recent event. Certainly in the spectrum of history. Evolution in action.



we support many christian and jewish charities, so if need be people can still retain tax breaks.


LOL, Let me know when you can blow off your property tax.

I might convert.

" for NONE are worthy and fall short of the glory of God" You knuckleheads are the same ones who follow Obama, You can't rely on a pastor to give you faith, You have to seek HIS face on your own, Read his word, Pray ask him with a sincere heart. I Love how the godless media who make fun of and mock people of faith anyway skew this. I attend church for fellowship, not to be given faith. I can see why this country is falling apart. Because the "intelligencia" whom I see are all here, say "we are to smart to believe in God" we will make a Utopia ourselves..Well, look around pal, the harder you try and rely less on the "man upstairs" the worse it gets..

the whole busines of religion is to survive after death (life everlasting) as that is nothing more than a pipe dream, there is no need for religion

those of you that believe in heaven, what job will you do there, will you get along with divorced parthers, will your children grow, can a soul have sex, does the soul have a peepee, will you need air conditioning, or fruit pie in the sky? or do you just die?

People change religion so much in America because it is a sham to be used to the individual's benefit. If it profits one to change, they don't think twice about it because they never really believed what they profess to begin with.

"Because the "intelligencia" whom I see are all here, say "we are to smart to believe in God" we will make a Utopia ourselves..Well, look around pal, the harder you try and rely less on the "man upstairs" the worse it gets.."

If you don't like it, why don't you go to a more religious country where morality is put above "intellect"...like Saudi Arabia?

I always wanted to use that line of reasoning. I hear it so much.

"we are to smart to believe in God"

Haven't seen a good self-retorting retort in a while.

Well, look around pal, the harder you try and rely less on the "man upstairs" the worse it gets..

Posted by HillBillyJihad

Yes, because all the advances in medicine and technology and agriculture, etc. were made before society started looking less to God and more to science for ways to make their lives better.

Our parents give us our religion, we have no say in the matter and get it hammered into us at an impressionable age. Like anything else they give us we can accept or change it. I rejected it at age 12 or so because the Catholic mumbo-jumbo I was being indocrinated with struck me as ridiculous and ruined my weekends. I wasn't remotely equipped to make such a decision of course but have seen nothing since that makes me regret it. To the contrary when I see the phoniness, crookedness and superstitious ignorance that permeates so much of American religious life I'm glad that I wasted so little of my youth on it.

I have to add that there is a lot more of what strikes me as genuine good and faith in religion as practised in America. More power to them as long as they don't try to evangelize me or take over our government.

When God speaks to you, in a real voice, you believe.

Scripture has very few people having this direct communication.

Something more real are the miracles.

Again, Scripture has very few people having this direct communication.

But, those that have seen and heard are many. With verification by multiple sources, the faith grows.

The saddest part of Christianity is explaining to a non-believer what it means to simply believe.

When I was very young, I believed without seeing and hearing. Later, those two were answered.

I cannot expect anyone to accept my word on anything. I firmly believe that if you saw and heard for yourself, you'd probably reject that, too.

In Scripture, that happened often.

People leave for many reasons. Often times it's a conflict of desire vs. God's will. For the more recent times, it's the desire for proof. Well, proof provided doesn't work. I've known people who have heard and seen and still walked away (Gosh, that's in Scripture, too).

Man is foolish. They choose not to find God. Those that do end of having to choose - and there is a choice. Denial is one.

I believe in providing proof. I've done so. But, only a few ever ask and even fewer are prepared when it is offered.

My biggest three issues with the Churches are: God has spoken to people for centuries. Why aren't the Words of God, given to these people, that is holy, santified and God-inspired, not added to the Bible? And second, why did man vote on the Bibles to be included in the Bible - why not just ask God? And lastly, if something today wasn't addressed in Scripture, why not ask God TODAY for his opinion? God is still available for conversation - right Reverends and Priests.

What if after you die you find out you were wrong and there truly is a God.
Then what? What extra effort does it take on one's part now while living to believe in God? How does just believing in God going to upset your life as it is now? Is just believing He exists going to stop you from watching the game this weekend? Cancel your dinner reservations? Delay your car from getting out of the repair shop any sooner? No.

Believing in God is no sweat off your brow. Such little effort is asked on your part to believe in Him. If you can't even give Him that then don't expect anything in return.

Why people think that God needs religion is fucking beyond me.

Choosing to believe in God "just in case" may get you into a lot of trouble if God is that jealous God we are told that He is. After all if there's a God there's a Satan too.

The trouble for me comes in good and evil; it starts with who defines. Yes, we all choose "good," and then - heaven forfend - STILL vote Republican. But Darth Vader notwithstanding, nobody chooses evil.

All that is morality, which has damlittle to do with any deity you care to invent, and even less with saviors, prophets, angels, devils, heavens, hells, what you have for dinner or with whom you copulate.

The nutty, far-out evangelical churches are growing. So is a tiny handful of questioning reasonable denominations ranging from Unitarian Universalism into deistic obscurity. It's the mainstream "faiths," frozen in time, not updated for centuries, that thinking folks are dropping out of.

You remember "faith" - the ability to believe that which common sense tells you cannot possibly be true. herm


The saddest part of Christianity is explaining to a non-believer what it means to simply believe.

When I was very young, I believed without seeing and hearing. Later, those two were answered.


There is a True Believer born every day...

True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged. It has since been applied, more loosely, to refer to any belief without empirical or logical foundations.

There is no invisible guy in the sky, no Man upstairs that speaks to everyone at once... there is no one speaking to you from "out there" only you in your head AND ALL OF US.

But, you are a True Believer ... so of course there is no word or explanation that will convince you.

Am I denying God? NO... I am denying your God... the God of the Bible... If you want to talk about God you will have to define God first...

The Bible does a piss poor job of that.

To me Christianity is a childish religion. Too limiting and restricting. Our knowledge continues to outgrow the God of the Bible such that he is running out of places to "hide"... we call that the God of the Gaps.

I don't want to understand the Universe by being a True Believer of a limiting Bible made by people who had no clue of the Immenseness of Time and Space...the possibilities of Multiple Universes does not fit in the Bible. I want to understand the Universe as it is by having intimate Knowledge of That Universe not a fake knowledge.

A true Gnosis if you will.

So like 44% apparently after I left my childhood I left the childishness of religions behind too.

That is not to say that there is not some Truth in the Bible or the Koran or any other of the religious texts out there ...just not The Truth.

You just have to learn to separate the Wheat from the Chaff.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Word

Oorah-

The word itself is God.


Believing in God is no sweat off your brow. Such little effort is asked on your part to believe in Him. If you can't even give Him that then don't expect anything in return.


I 'love' the idea that god, should god exist, cares about whether or not you believe in him/her/it.

Has there ever been a more stupid idea? Yes, the all powerful, all knowing, ruler of the universe is patently offended when one of the 6 billion little humanoid bugs on this planet doesn't believe that he/she/it exists. Even more so if they believe, but happen to fall into the trap of believe in the wrong way or accepting the wrong dogmatic belief system.

Let's assume that there is a god. Let's assume that this life is a sort of test to see who will behave and who will not behave. Where does belief fit into that model? So, you live a completely morally devoid life but you BELIEVE and that makes the ultimate judge pleased? But, you live a very moral life and fail to believe and you fail the test? Nope. Sorry, Pascal's wager is just too damn stupid for anyone with an IQ over 60 to buy into.

I propose Tetsuo29's wager. If there is a god and if god is going to pass some sort of judgment on us at the end of this life, it will be our actions that will matter and what we believe or didn't believe will be of no consequence at all.

This trend is one of the few signs of hope for this country. Intelligence and reason are winning this one.

I cannot get into a church unless it's focus is on charity, community service, helping its members with their problems, etc...

Unfortunately, in my experience that seems to disqualify most churches that can afford a building to meet at.

Donner,

"There is no invisible guy in the sky, no Man upstairs that speaks to everyone at once... there is no one speaking to you from "out there" only you in your head AND ALL OF US."

Here's an odd thing I have noticed about many of the atheists I have known.

While they are so positive there is no God, many many of them believe there is life on other planets.

Isn't that ironic?

Without any proof whatsoever, they choose to believe in life on other worlds.

Really, that's what being a Christian is for us. We choose to believe in God, and especially in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Of course, there are some differences between believing in God and life on other worlds. Our faith has led many people to make life choices that frequently change lives. As Christians we have seen people make incredible changes in the direction their life is taking.

As Christians we believe in a world of spirits. We also believe in a Holy Spirit that dwells in our body because of our relationship with Jesus Christ. We believe it's true and many of us have seen the effect on people who make that choice.

But...atheists laugh at us and say we're crazy, while many of them believe in extraterrestrial life with absolutely no more concrete proof than we have as Christians.

The saddest part of Christianity is explaining to a non-believer what it means to simply believe.

Because it's hard to imagine why anybody would want to believe something so absurd? When life has so much to offer, it's a self imposed mental prison. Religion strikes me as a prescribed philosophy of life for those who don't have the will or creativity to develop their own.

I would guess the other half of the equation is that 66% have not left their childhood faith. Guess put that was did not sound newsworth enough for those on the left.

Sorry 0-- 56% - wife needed me so was rushed.

Bill-

Interestingly I did not say that there was no God... I said that the God of the Bible is limiting. Again we need to define God if we are to speak intelligently about it.

Is it Ironic that intelligent people believe in the "possibility" of Life on other Planets but question the existence of God the invisible man theory?

Not really as the probability of life on other planets can actually be calculated while the probability of a God can only be philosophized about.

Oorah- The Word is like a carrier signal that God rides upon. If you can understand that you can possibly understand the nature of "God" better. You might like to try and call that the Holy Spirit to give yourself a Religious High.

Religious zealots like to say that God did manifest hisself as Jesus but that is only conjecture and was hotly debated even ancient times and even now in some Religious circles (the ones allowed to ask questions.

It is more likely that Jesus was a man, just a man, that understood the concept of "god" better than his fellows did and hence was a teacher to them of "godly" ways.

The fact that True Believers Believe that without question does not surprise me. That is the nature of True Believers.. to believe without questioning or understanding.

This, of course, is why I am not one.

Here you go, heathens and atheists -- --

"SPIRIT IN THE SKY" - Norman Greenbaum

Give it time. The only thing that can stop this trend is ignorance.

Again we need to define God if we are to speak intelligently about it.

At least let's admit it's all a product of human imagination.

I just played "spirit in the sky". I thought I saw the holy ghost flying around in those clouds. I'm now a believer!!



pfffftttt! (grin)

so our education system must be doing SOMETHING right after all.

(they) laugh at us and say we're crazy, while many of them believe in extraterrestrial life with absolutely no more concrete proof than we have as Christians.

Posted by BillJohnson



And they would be just as unreasonable believing that as you are in your beliefs.

"SPIRIT IN THE SKY" - Norman Greenbaum

Posted by CalifChris



Norman Greenbaum!!!

What's he doing singing about Jesus?

Is it Ironic that intelligent people believe in the "possibility" of Life on other Planets but question the existence of God the invisible man theory?

Poor analogy. It's hypothetically possible for there to be life on other planets. Hardly likely we'll ever know because of the great distances.

Religionists accept the description of an invisible man and act as if it's real.

It's one thing to acknowledge unseen life may exist and another to be certain an invisible man exists with no form. Only man can imagine a life form that doesn't exist.

Greenbaum is a jew. So was Jesus before he flip flopped.

You say you know who's wrong and who's right
You say the poor deserve their plight

You say we're all just a moral disgrace
And the the good Lord must put us in our place

Like any god of love and forgiveness would do..


Tell me brother, do I turn the other cheek?
Or do I blind the man who blinded me?

And will your god give the world to the meek?
Then condemn the confused and weak?

Like any god of love and forgiveness would do

Preacher man don't preach to me
If your going to heaven...
To Hell With Me!!

excerpted from 'To Hell With Me' by the Victims of the Insane(c)2007

Lucky for you all he is a forgiving God. "But
St.Peter, I really believe in him"........ I will pray for ya'll.

"Lucky for you all he is a forgiving God."

May He touch you with his noodly appendage.
Ramen.











idiot

I think alot of the 44% happens because when people get married, they make a decision, and chose on faith or the other. My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, and most of my relatives are Episcopalian, but my parents chose a Presbyterian Church to raise us. It was that or the crazy Menonites.....:-)

My ex was Jewish, and we raised our children that way. Now that I'm almost divorced, I'm thinking of going back to a local Presbyterian church.

"So was Jesus before he flip flopped."

Mohammad too, then he flipflopped,

"Jerusalem, too, underwent the process of Islamization: at first Muhammad attempted to convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community, and, by way of persuasion, established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to the north, towards Jerusalem, in keeping with Jewish practice; but after he failed in this attempt he turned against the Jews, killed many of them, and directed the kiblah southward, towards Mecca.

Muhammad's abandonment of Jerusalem explains the fact that this city is not mentioned even once in the Koran. After Palestine was occupied by the Moslems, its capital was Ramlah, 30 miles to the west of Jerusalem, signifying that Jerusalem meant nothing to them."

www.ldolphin.org

Zatoichi :

I will pray for you.... I am sorry your life is so empty. Your parents are obviously to blame, would you care to talk about your parents and how you feel abut them?

Are you still living in their basement?

It's that kind of judgemental sarcasm that makes you such a wonderful witness for your lord 08r.

and I DID notice zat started the name-calling...but YOU'RE the one commanded to turn the other cheek. :)

MRSOUL; I am not commanded to turn the other check. Turning the other cheek ( which is a suggestion as is stoning, murder etc. ) is what has led us to where we are, i prefer an eye for and eye. Therefore, let's rock.

Zatoichi;

Has your mommy gone on one of her "special" dates again tonight and left you all alone again? Poor poopsie.........

I'll leave the the name calling and venom to you self-righteous,'Jesus was a republican' types and to the overly sensitive, self-righteous liberal types.

You're all extremely silly, but damn if you aren't an addictive entertainment.

Rock on silly men and women!

It's hypothetically possible for there to be life on other planets. Hardly likely we'll ever know because of the great distances.

Religionists accept the description of an invisible man and act as if it's real.


Isn't it also hypothetically possible that there is a God tho? It is possible the the "Religionists" as you say just got it wrong. Kinda of like how they got the creation of the Earth Wrong. They got the creation of Man wrong. They deny evolution is possible and they believe that the Bible is an Instruction Manual dictated by God.

Isn't possible that there actually might be a God but ancient man was not equipped to describe God so they made some shit up to fill in the gaps in their understanding?

Isn't that also possible? Just as possible as life on other planets is?

I mean isn't there actually a 50 50 chance that there is a God?

I mean there either is or there isn't!

50 - 50

Word!

I agree DonnerBoy. I find the atheist's absolute view that god doesn't exist, to be as unreasonable as any 'religionist's '(lol) absolute view that THEIR god is the one and only.

I do find that the 'religionists' tend to practice a scarier brand of intolerance though.

On-topic: My wife is a recovering Catholic and now a Lutheran. I think it's a good switch (I guess I'm biased, though).

Not quite on-topic: I like religious threads and I'd like to share some thoughts, for what they're worth (I've had too much coffee today and can't sleep...)

Unbelievers sometimes say, "God shouldn't need people to worship him." From my understanding as a Lutheran, he doesn't NEED us to worship him -- how could he need something like that? But he does want a close relationship with us out of love, and so he WANTS us to worship him for our sake. An analogy (albeit a poor one): I don't need my cat to love me, but I think she lives a happier life is I hear her purring on my lap every once in a while.

Unbelievers sometimes say, "God shouldn't need my money." In a nutshell, he doesn't, but oftentimes his works on earth do. I'll freely admit that I am deeply bothered by extravagent worship facilities that I often see in affluent neighborhoods (often coinciding with "mega-churches"), but giving money to a church is not in and of itself wrong. A functioning church simply needs staff, and the nature of the work negates volunteers. If you want educated people doing the work, including preaching, they must pay for that education and thus must be paid for their work. And it's not always easy.

Unbelievers sometimes say, "Thinking people can't possibly be religious." I'd say that's crazy, hurtful, close-minded, historically selective, and unthoughtful. I honestly don't think there's any correlation between religion and intelligence. History is full of examples of religious folk who were also quite intelligent, even if that intelligence went against the organized church of the day.

Unbelievers sometimes say, "God shouldn't need to be worshipped in groups." First refer to the first point, and then refer to the previous poster who said that group worship is as much about community as it is anything else. I will say that I feel closer to God worshipping with others and with a talented preacher than I do worshipping alone.

With all that said, I'm not trying to convert anybody here, just wanted to respond to a few things that have come up before. The coffee is wearing off and the nightcap is working in, so I'll stop my ramble. All these points were brushed on earlier, hence the response. Hope it doesn't come across as too unsolicited....

Oh, and:

"You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage,
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage,
You may be a business man or some high degree thief,
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody."

bobdylan.com

I love Bob. It's a great song, and I'd like to believe Bob would allow me to interpret "gotta serve somebody", to include serving something as simple and uncluttered as love and respect for my fellow human beings. I could be wrong....he wrote that during his infamous 'born again' phase. But, I'm thinking an older and gentler Bob wouldn't mind.

Peace.

Isn't it also hypothetically possible that there is a God tho?

Posted by donnerboy


No...
We see life on this planet, and then can imagine that a planet with similar conditions also might produce something like we've already seen.

No conditions have ever produced a God, however. Therefore you cannot predict the conditions that would produce one.

If you meant to say, "Can't we just pull any old idea out of our ass and then say 'Well, couldn't it be possible?'" then you would be spot on.

I grew up thinking only Baptists can go to heaven. Now I realized that regardless of religious background, anyone sincerely having faith and calling on the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will receive salvation and will enter heaven on the merit of Jesus' death and resurrection.

I also realized that it is the power of the Spirit (Acts 1:8) that changes hearts and turn lives around. Not religion. Now South America is undergoing a revolution as the Spirit of God penetrates hearts and transform worshippers from religious beings into dynamic believers.

The Catholic Church is not a cafeteria. One cannot pick and choose what they will accept or reject. Further the Church is guided by God, not driven by popular culture. Those two facts cause a great many people to leave the Church and that's quite sad. Many people want to live their lives on their terms, not God's terms and that causes friction with the Church.

Thankfully the Church is still growing strongly throughout the world -- even in the USA/Canada and Western Europe.

I just read a lot as a kid. The more I read, the less god made sense. Then when I got my drivers license, my mom stopped going to Mass and made me drive my sisters and myself there. After a couple of weeks of that, I waited in the car for my sisters to come out and listened to the radio. My sisters ratted me out. I told my mom if I was old enough to drive, I was old enough to decide if I went to Mass or not. She had no arguement for that. I've been an atheist ever since.

Though I gotta do admit it was kinda cool seeing Roger Staubach at church. He was at the peak of his career then and also went to St. Marks. When I was an altar boy, I held the paten under his chin during communion a couple of times. I guess that was my 15 minutes.

I felt the same way as a kid, goatman. Went through an atheist/agnostic phase and came out closer to being a deist.

But I cannot accept the majority belief on God. They're either dead wrong or God is insane.

I don't see the problem here, from what i have read about this issue, and there have been many lately. The people that attend church are simply moving around to their denominations or religions. For some reason this blog and this article seems to state that everyone is loosing their faith in God and are turning Atheistic. God is very real in my life and I would never be ashamed to say such a thing even with a gun to my head. I have seen to much, and I have seen Gods hand in FAR too many situations not to believe. I personally believe that witness accounts are justified and the accounts of many can stand as evidence by them selves... though that is NOT why I believe. God lives in me and I know he guides me, and even college couldn't break that from me, and MAN DID THEY TRY! By the way... the more I read the deep my faith and relationship with God became. I find allot of dishonesty out there... Seems many have read the bible and think it's crap.

The Catholic Church is not a cafeteria. One cannot pick and choose what they will accept or reject. Further the Church is guided by God, not driven by popular culture. Those two facts cause a great many people to leave the Church and that's quite sad. Many people want to live their lives on their terms, not God's terms and that causes friction with the Church.

I have to chuckle here, People pick and choose what they will accept and reject all the time, just as the Catholic Church does.

The Catholic Church decided that pedophiles were more important than the actual people they were suppose to serve. So according to you these pedophiles priests were guided by God since the church decided to protect them and allow the practice to continue.

Afraid you have convoluted the idea of individual enlightenment into the organized practice of man made minipulations.

Now I realized that regardless of religious background, anyone sincerely having faith and calling on the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will receive salvation and will enter heaven on the merit of Jesus' death and resurrection.
Posted by takitez


So hundreds of millions of believers in nonChristian religions are doomed to hell simply because of the culture they were born into? They were doomed from the start?

It's not that they left their church. It's that they never were serious about the church to begin with.

The pot-headed "me generation" wants their SUV's, their Sundays sleeping in and smoking dope 'till 3 in the afternoon, getting hammered 'till midnight, so they can get up on Monday morning waiting for Friday night to come when they can start their self-centered heathen weekend lifestyles all over again.

Degenerates they are, the progeny of their 60's parents who woke up every morning believing they were the center of the universe.

Pass the bong please!


There are many paths to continue on the great journey. Enlightenment is of the mind of the individual.

Everyone is capable it is only the willing who achieve.

**** Do you believe living utterly self-serving and compassionless towards the weak is evolving?
BillJohnson ****

......all the religious people on this site are consistently opposed to welfare,social security,medicaid and public healthcare.......

........so it seems that being religious has a relationship with being anti-generous, far more than the godless socialists who advocate generous public policy towards the poor......

Mr. Soul,
Sounds good to me, and I'd agree with your interpretation of the older, gentler Bob. My post was mostly a blanket response to problems people have with religion that have come up frequently.

**** America is NOT the great nation it once was. Sure...it's the best the world has to offer, but the general direction is rudderless these days. BillJohnson ****

....you sound like a trailer park resident that hasn't gone past the county line in his lifetime....

.....you should get out more.........the only things we lead the world in are the number of millionaires and the amount of money we spend on making war...(a real Christian statistic that one: what size army would Jesus have?).......

......we are no longer in the top ten in the world in public health, life expectancy, poverty rates, public education, social mobility, human development index, liveable cities,.......and yes you are right.....we are going in the wrong direction in all these areas.........

all the religious people on this site are consistently opposed to welfare,social security,medicaid and public healthcare

All the people on this site are always guilty of always generalizing.

It is one of the most important ways one can justify his or her prejudice.

Cheers

**** I agree completely that Christians contradict each other. That doesn't mean, though, that the basic premise of Christianity is false.
BillJohnson ****

.........well actually......it does..........

......you believe in Christianity for the same reason that Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews believe in their respective piles of rubbish..........

......you are able to understand that the OTHER religions are false, then know also that you are suffering from the same culture induced delusions that they are.........

........I used to believe in Santa Claus.....people told me it was true and I trusted them.......

Yawn.

Why not use the Spaghetti Monster. Makes you look even dumber.

"what size army would Jesus have?"



If you only KNEW the answer you would be a belie.....

Oh never mind.


Flee Hell.

If there is no God, as the atheist know-it-all maintains, then crying about the poor, or about lack of education, or whatever cause the atheist lifts up as important, is a real laugher.

Why should anything matter if, in the end, we're all headed toward the black abyss of empty space? Whatever your pet cause happens to be, you are simply whistling in the graveyard, pretending as though what you stand for is really noble and worthy, when in truth it isn't worth spit.

If all things are headed towards annihilation, then "morality" and "meaning" are mere inventions of atomic material bumping into itself, wishing and hoping that such annihilation won't disqualify such drivel.

But the anti-God crowd will no doubt disagree. They will insist there is meaning and value and purpose and morality. But on what basis? Answer: On faith...faith that such hypocritical nitwit-ism isn't as much a desperate act of belief as those they decry!



"True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged. "




This doesn't apply to personal contact. There have been many stages events. Even Harry Houdini used to root them out.

Of course you can't convince someone who believes that they are wrong when they have had personal contact. Hearing voices to most is considered crazy. Hearing God speak to you is also most coveted.

So I'm crazy and blessed.

You're right - I can't deny the existence of God.
It's impossible.
But, convincing you? It's not a matter of convincing you of anything. I'm afraid the matter is in your hands, not mine. I've dusted my sandals off enough times. Pharaoh isn't the only person who rejected despite direct influence by God.

**** If there is no God, as the atheist know-it-all maintains, then crying about the poor, or about lack of education, or whatever cause the atheist lifts up as important, is a real laugher.

DoubtingThomas ****

.........really ?............so if some "prophet" did not tell you what was good and evil in human relationships..........you would not be able tell the difference between good and evil without the "prophet" ?......


I just read a lot as a kid. The more I read, the less god made sense. Then when I got my drivers license, my mom stopped going to Mass and made me drive my sisters and myself there. After a couple of weeks of that, I waited in the car for my sisters to come out and listened to the radio. My sisters ratted me out. I told my mom if I was old enough to drive, I was old enough to decide if I went to Mass or not. She had no arguement for that. I've been an atheist ever since.

Though I gotta do admit it was kinda cool seeing Roger Staubach at church. He was at the peak of his career then and also went to St. Marks. When I was an altar boy, I held the paten under his chin during communion a couple of times. I guess that was my 15 minutes.

Posted by goatman at 2008-02-27 04:45 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Great post, Goatman, in a thread full (mostly) of great and thoughtful posts. I grew up Catholic, attending 12 years of Catholic school, in a devout Catholic household in which my mom was church secretary and I was an altar boy for many years. I attended church at least twice a week for the first half of my life. Nothing but good experiences all around. All the nuns and priests I knew were kind and gentle and committed to their faith (and none of them put their hands on me!) My favorite teachers in high school were the priests, many of whom had a great sense of humor and a sincere drive to educate me and make the world a better, happier place. The parish I belonged to was full of great fellowship, and the annual picnic/festival was a blast! I made lifelong friends there.

So I look back on my Catholic experience with nothing but fondness.

Still... as I grew older, read more, and got to know the world, I drifted away from the church and its dogmatic injunctions. As Spud says, priestly celibacy is just nutty -- and unnatural. Same with prohibitions against wanking or premarital sex. But more importantly, I just don't see any reason to believe other than to CYA. Believe if you want to, brothers and sisters, but I need proof. I need facts. I can't believe just because I'm "supposed to." I'm not an atheist, and as others have said, being certain that there is no divine being is just as illogical as being certain that there is. I like to think there is some greater purpose in life beyond the brief adventure we all go through on earth, but I have to accept that I just don't know.

Religion serves as a moral compass for many people, and that's a good thing. But if you're raised by moral, loving parents, as I was, and you use kindness and good judgment in your life, as I think I do, you can be moral without the formality of organized religion.

***** all the religious people on this site are consistently opposed to welfare,social security,medicaid and public healthcare

All the people on this site are always guilty of always generalizing. Grendel *****

......yes I generalized..............do you feel that my generalization was not valid ?..........keeping in mind the postings of Tad, Nice,BillJohnson,Petrous, etc.


........it has consistently struck me that the more religious the poster here profess to be ........

.......the more antipathy they profess for the poor and for publicly funded benefits for the poor ( denigrating public benefits with the epithat of "socialism" )......

I grew up very religious in the Church of Christ (women should be subservient, dancing is a sin, etc.) There was a mass exedous out of this huge expensive church by 1/4 of the congregation and we were one of them. I remember my parents telling me to "stand up, we're leaving" along with about 100 others. Almost all of us went to a small Church outside the city where many had to stand through the sermon becuase there were not enough seats. This Church preached love, understanding, and doing God's work through helping others.

My point: Christianity should not be categorized into a "hateful" religion becuase of groups who take advantage of it. The Rebublican Party road this wave for years and now they are paying the price. Their message: greed is good, hate is good, judging is good, and you can't be a Christian and vote for a Democrat has been recognized for what it is.

I am no longer a Christian but, have great respect for those who practice and preach it how Jesus taught it.

yes I generalized..............do you feel that my generalization was not valid ?..........keeping in mind the postings of Tad, Nice,BillJohnson,Petrous, etc.

I am a practicing Catholic. I am very much pro social security. While there is abuse of the welfare system, not to have it as a safety net would be even a greater moral outrage. We as a society have moral obligation to take care of those who are not well off. In my mind there is nothing more Christian than this. Pro medicaid? I am for a universal health program for all citizens. Again, I feel that this is a position supported by my religious beliefs. Is that pro enough?

If you care to read on, you can hear my "sermon" on ideological labelling. In general I despise the labeling of positions and beliefs as either right or left. Those are categories that people wish to use in order to put people and ideas into slots. In this way people who do not wish to think too hard can decide to accept them or denounce them without the trouble of really considering them.

In addition individuals opften use labels to define themselves so as to tell themselves what they believe. "I am conservative, therefore I must believe . . ."

I think it is much wiser to base your positions on your own personal philosophy or view of the world and leave the labeling of those views to people who are obsessed with categorizing others into two groups--generally "us" and "them."

If I was forced to label my views according to some narrow definitions, you would probably see that I run to the right and to the left depending on the issue. I just can't see what the value is in knowing that though.

Cheers

**** If there is no God, as the atheist know-it-all maintains, then crying about the poor, or about lack of education, or whatever cause the atheist lifts up as important, is a real laugher.

DoubtingThomas ****

.........really ?............so if some "prophet" did not tell you what was good and evil in human relationships..........you would not be able tell the difference between good and evil without the "prophet" ?......



ANSWER: I'm saying if there is no God, and all is a great cosmic accident, then differences like right vs. wrong, or good vs. evil are empty musings of idiots who are doing nothing more than whistling in the graveyard....whistling in hope that the empty silence and dark night won't be the final word.

Grendel.........well said..


DoubtingThomas....

.....you did not answer the question............

......I think we both know why.......

.........really ?............so if some "prophet" did not tell you what was good and evil in human relationships..........you would not be able tell the difference between good and evil without the "prophet" ?......

This was precisely the basis of one of C.S. Lewis argument for the existence of God. The fact that we all seem to "know" what is basically right and wrong suggests that there is a universal yard stick for measuring human action. If you think there is a universal right and wrong, then you need to ask what is the source of that universal moral precept? Answers to these questions, according to Lewis can lead you to concluding that God exists.

This argument is certainly not without its flaws, but it is an interesting one, nonetheless.

Here is a summary of the argument from morality, including Lewis' as well as a rebuttal from an atheist.

www.biblicaldefense.org

atheism.about.com


Cheers

Grendel.........well said..

Thank you, Skizziks.

Skizziks -Generalizing is normal.

Everyone generalized.

Just not me.

DoubtingThomas....

.....you did not answer the question............


......I think we both know why.......




Actually, I think we both know you haven't thought far enough. I think we both know why....


"......all the religious people on this site are consistently opposed to welfare,social security,medicaid and public healthcare.......""

"........so it seems that being religious has a relationship with being anti-generous, far more than the godless socialists who advocate generous public policy towards the poor......"
Posted by skizziks

You know...that's one of the stupidest things I've heard on this site...until I saw it was from our comrade SKIZZMO. Where'd U get that from anyway, your communist manifesto. You idiot...who the hell do you think provides funding for the above?...us, the hardworking, church going citizens that care about the welfare and morality of our society. We care so much that we are unsettled at the corruption and waste that occurs w/in the beauracracies that administer these programs. We care how our tax dollars are spent. I don't want a dime going to a free-loading, drugs-abusing bum who has poor little illegitimate children running around that he/she never raises a hand to support. Nor do I want a mgmt-level staffer in these organizations driving a new Lexus w/ the proceeds coming from an unaudited scam.the more the fed and state gov's get involved in it...the more disfunctional they become.

do you pay taxes? just curious.

I luff these discussions! Always nice to see Grendel show up and always refreshing to hear honest input from Spud and others...

I have seen Gods hand in FAR too many situations not to believe. God lives in me and I know he guides me....

I am sorry ... but I have to laugh when I hear talk like this...You may honestly believe this but isn't it just as likely that what you experienced had nothing at all to do with anything supernatural?

Perhaps, you have misinterpreted the events? Perhaps you had it in you all along to guide yourself? Or perhaps there is an alternate interpretation that has nothing to do with God but with many other things combined. Events that occur on this planet can have many complex and interrelated connections that are not readily apparent but upon closer examination have Earthly explanations.



So tell me this.. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS GODS HAND?

Just as we have yet to find any evidence of life outside this planet we have yet to find ANY EVIDENCE that God had a hand in anything in this universe.

Could the two propositions ..the existence of God and the existence of Life outside the Earth be related?

And so you will say... if I had faith I would understand and to that I would say hogwash.

If there is a God then that God would want me to KNOW ... not just believe because it is the right thing to do.

To wrap this up I would like to direct your attention to a series of books I read a while ago that opened my eyes to alternate possibilities.

It is called
The Celestine Prophecy: An Adventure

While I don't necessarily subscribe to that belief system I find the theory of Coincidences very interesting and quite probable.I guess they call that New Age thinking...

Finally, thanks for that link to the Spirit in the Sky... that brought back some memories!

PS if you REALLY what to see God... find a nice safe Cave that has and opening over a beautiful valley or a remote place on a beautiful beach at sunset and drop a tab of LSD (make sure you have a designated semi-sober attendant) and you are pretty much guaranteed to see God.

Interesting how that works. Your semi-sober attendant will not see God but YOU will!


Why should anything matter if, in the end, we're all headed toward the black abyss of empty space? ....
If all things are headed towards annihilation, then "morality" and "meaning" are mere inventions of atomic material bumping into itself,....

But the anti-God crowd will no doubt disagree. They will insist there is meaning and value and purpose and morality......

Posted by DoubtingThomas


Actually.......No.......

It doesn't take a giant magic guy with a beard to tell me that Murder and rape aren't good for society. That if we all want to survive and prosper as a people in the modern world that it's not a good idea to take stuff without paying for it. It doesn't take the threat of eternal fire and brimstone to tell me that it is not a good idea, and that it just feels bad, to knock over an old lady and steal her money.
You seem to feel that without religion, everyone would be running around willy-nilly killing and pillaging.

And I am a true Non-believer, yet am farsighted enough to realize that for my lifetime and most of my descendants', the world and society will be here, so it's probably a good idea to try to all get along and make this miserable ride of life a little more bearable.

DoubtingThomas........

......you did not answer the question......

.....because you know....as I do.......

......that if there were no religions.....people would still have an understanding of what is right and wrong......

........which would make your premise, that a god is necessary to guide our lives, false.....

Actually, the idea that life is just doing a bunch of stuff, reproducing, and then dying is much more dealable then the concept that it's all a big game to see what kind of existence you'll have later. Am I wearing the right hat? Am I saying the right words at the right time of day? Should I think this or that? Do I go to one church on Saturday, or the other on Sunday?!?!?!?Oh I so want to win!!!!

DoubtingThomas........

......you did not answer the question......

.....because you know....as I do.......

......that if there were no religions.....people would still have an understanding of what is right and wrong......

........which would make your premise, that a god is necessary to guide our lives, false.....



LOL, YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT! YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT FAR ENOUGH!

EVEN IF THERE WERE NO RELIGIONS, THERE IS STILL NO GROUND FOR KNOWING RIGHT VS. WRONG, FOR THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT AND WRONG, BUT ONLY PREFERENCES.

I DOUBT YOU WILL SEE THIS, HOWEVER. YOU CHOSE INSTEAD TO WHISTLE IN THE DARKNESS!

BUT HEY, "IGNORANCE IS BLISS," AS THEY SAY!



......yes BusyB........I pay taxes......

........10K in income tax......2k in property tax....just doing it now......

........I am not communist, I only said that mock your obsession with socialism........

........and, your own words," I don't want a dime going to a free-loading, drugs-abusing bum who has poor little illegitimate children running around "...shows your anti-Christian attitude to the poor.......

......you are the showcase of the selfish religious people who hate the poor, on this site, ......

MONEYWAR:

Many sincere God-seeker will find God and be reconciled with God (Jer. 29:13; Acts 10, Cornelius).

As for those who sincerely sought God but died without the benefit of being presented the claim of Christ in a timely and relevant manner, they will still find justice and mercy with God in ways we humans on earth cannot fathom --- for the 'Judge of all the earth' will do right (Genesis 18:25; Romans 2:6).

***** EVEN IF THERE WERE NO RELIGIONS, THERE IS STILL NO GROUND FOR KNOWING RIGHT VS. WRONG, FOR THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT AND WRONG, BUT ONLY PREFERENCES.
DoubtingThomas ****

..........you are mistaken...........

.......secular laws, based on a human bill of rights, are not only made and used on a constant basis by all societies........

.........these laws frequently conflict with religious law, and are held in higher esteem, as they are in our country, because they are not tainted by the bigotry and arbitrariness of religion..(burn the witch, cut off his hand,imprison the apostate)......

......indeed....it would be a sadder world if we relied on these goofy gods we have created, to base our laws on.........

BUT HEY, "IGNORANCE IS BLISS," AS THEY SAY!


Posted by DoubtingThomas at 2008-02-27 11:18 AM


Self retorting retort!



Can you even imagine a world without religion DT?

Its easy if you try.

Imagine!


.......and.......using upper case will not lend weight to your weak logic......

Spud,

I don't understand how one can believe in "good" and "evil" yet not believe they are opposing forces that intend to shut the other out.

And man is a pawn somewhere in the middle whose role is deciding which "he" will join with.


Spud luffs the part in Genesis where Adam and Eve eat the "apple". ie. The fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Good and Evil enter the world at that point because it is only a being who can discern between a good act and an evil act (ie. a sentient being) who can CHOOSE to do good or to do evil.

Spud always looked at that story as being a wonderfully descriptive analogy of how at some point humanity evolved beyond being simple animals and became sentient.

Animals are not capable of good or evil. They are only capable of being themselves and acting according to circumstance and their own nature.

But of course Good and Evil did not come into being when humanity evolved into sentience. Good and Evil are permanent. Neither one can eradicate the other. Without both there can be no free will.

The more we (that is the human race) chose evil the closer this planet gets to Hell on earth. The more we chose good the closer this planet gets to being a Heaven on earth.

Life's wot you make it.

Life is choice. Morality is choice.

Choose well.

Be Well.

/Neato thread. Some nice contributions by Grendel (as always), Donnerboy, Bill Johnson, BenFranklin, Skizziks, TFD et al.

SKIZZMO...demanding accountibility and responsibility is not anti-Christian. I still pay my fair share and give my time in similar causes. I have just seen the results of the leeches that abuse our generous help. What's wrong w/ some oversight, some scrutiny w/ how this help is extended. Think of the millions and millions that can be saved and applied in appropriate needs if we could cullout the mismgmt

This is sure a fun thread; I think we should make it permanent.

Those who postulate the existence of a deity, a devil, demons, imps, virgins and Republicans will not lose their faiths.

Others will exude world-weary sighs and like Galileo (Copernicus?) breathe that the earth STILL circles the sun. herm

Donnerboy,

I am glad to be here too. This conversations are the most fun and interesting.

With that in mind I would like to address a point you made.

Just as we have yet to find any evidence of life outside this planet we have yet to find ANY EVIDENCE that God had a hand in anything in this universe.

What would you accept as evidence?

This conversations = These conversations

I would think that would be obvious but I can see how a persons "belief" system could make that difficult to understand for some (though I know you are playing the "devils advocate" here.

Evidence would have to be based on the Scientific Method of course.

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

We have to be very careful and take precautions to NOT see what we want to see while seeking the Truth.

Wiki also has a very good example of this in the Flying Horse:

Truth and belief

Main article: Truth

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.[8] Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed.
Eadweard Muybridge's studies of a horse galloping
Eadweard Muybridge's studies of a horse galloping

Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation. This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a belief about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.

en.wikipedia.org

Bottom line Evidence has to be available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.

****...demanding accountibility and responsibility is not anti-Christian.....BusyB****

.........but neither is it a Christian value.......

.........and calling the poor "leeches" certainly is anti-Christian........

........if you are too hard hearted to carry your religious beliefs into everyday practice, thats your business, but then perhaps you should not be calling people "socialists"........the very people who are willing to help the poor, the undereducated, the sick and needy...........

......you know between you and me, if Christ was alive today, he'd be half-way between a Communist and a Socialist ........

This is actually a comforting article. Bottom line, the inerrant word of God says that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), but thankfully, God sent His son Jesus to die for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD (John 3:16) and if we believe in Him, we hhave crossed over from death (dead in our sins) to life (eternally with God) (John 5:24). Our loyalty should not lie in a church or a denomination, it should lie in Christ who saved us the moment we believe in HIM. It is a free gift from God, that NO ONE (not yourself, not a church, not a baptism, not in a denomination) should boast, because CHRIST did it for us (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is a free gift from God, not of works that we do or loyalty to a church. Once you believe, you are saved FOREVER, no matter what... because Christ DIED FOR YOUR SINS. Bottom line for SALVATION, Believe and you will be saved. Walking with Christ and living "for Him" has to do with eternal REWARDS in the eternal KINGDOM (after the rapture), but it has nothing to do with your eternal salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Bottom line, the inerrant word of God says that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God...

Bottom line, the Inerrant Word of God has already been shown to be full of errors. By some estimates there are 50,000 errors or variants in the Bible.

Until this basic fact is agreed upon (by either proving or disproving this basic fact) then no further discussion of the subject can intelligently take place.

"Bottom line Evidence has to be available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them."


Hmmmm, one wonders why there is then such diversity of opinion amongst all those scientists who are pontificating about "global warming"?

Even science is a blind man's cane!



for an intelligent analysis of the "multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations" in the "inerrant word of God" I suggest starting here.

Misquoting Jesus

by Bart Ehrman

http://www.harpercollins.com/ authors/28093/Bart_D_Ehrman/ index.aspx

nice strawman DT -- but I'll byte.

global warming is actually considered a fact by most respected scientists based upon the Evidence.

It is the cause of Global Warming that is in dispute as all the Evidence is not yet in.

Bottom line, the Inerrant Word of God has already been shown to be full of errors. By some estimates there are 50,000 errors or variants in the Bible.



LOL...more ignorance pretending to be scholarly!!!

Hey Donnerboy, 50,000 errors? I would agree there are errors, but can you demonstrate how such could be the case for a book that has roughly 2,000 pages? This would be about 25 errors per page.

So scholarboy, show us! Pick a page and show us!



nice strawman DT -- but I'll byte.

global warming is actually considered a fact by most respected scientists based upon the Evidence.


Oh really? I wonder what all those respected scientists are saying now?...in the face of all contrary evidence?

www.dailytech.com

Glad to hear that you think Salvation should be anything but a free gift from God....

All scripture in it's original manuscripts is God breathed. If you would like for me to post the word in Greek, I would be glad to.

home.earthlink.net

Donnerboy,

You have to love the irony here in your accurate statement.

though I know you are playing the "devils advocate"

Playing the devil's advocate to come to a belief in the existence of God!

Anyway,

Evidence would have to be based on the Scientific Method of course.

Why should I assume that?

There are many things in your life that you treat as real and count as real that defy scientific proof.

I am willing to bet that the love you have for yourself (not implying egoism or a criticism), for a significant other and/or family members is the most important and real thing in your life.

Can you prove that this love exists in any real empirical way using the scientific method?

What might this mean, if one considers God as pure love?

My point here is not a proof of the existence of God, but in the limitations of certain epistomologies to give the final truth as to what is real and what is not.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159167


Cheers

Grendel...you're such an elegant, indepth thinker and philosopher, especially to us bumpkin conservatives. It's not complicated...you have Faith, or you don't. May you be blessed and your life filled with good health.

Can you prove that this love exists in any real empirical way using the scientific method?

Why yes! "Love" can be measured and observed. Many altruistic behaviors in humans and animals can be measured and observed. Many altruistic behaviors have been attributed directly to genetic instructions.

In Richard Dawkins the Selfish Gene "Love" can be explained by the genetic instructions causing organisms to do things that would harm the individual yet provide a path for the genes of that individual to continue. This behaviou even occurs in organisms that are not kin.

When looked at from the point of view of gene selection, many biological phenomena that, in prior models, were difficult to explain become easier to understand. In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as gene sets "helping" copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms.

Prior to the 1960s, it was common for such behaviour to be explained in terms of group selection, where the benefits to the organism or even population were supposed to account for the popularity of the genes responsible for the tendency towards that behaviour.

This was shown not to be an evolutionarily stable strategy, in that it would only take a single individual with a tendency towards more selfish behaviour to undermine a population otherwise filled only with the gene for altruism towards non-kin.


The problem here is that when you hold up religion in comparison to science, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Science is about obtaining certain kinds of knowledge.

Religion (spiritual expression) is about establishing a relationship with the divine; it is not primarily concerned with revealing the secrets of the universe.

Like all real relationships that humans have, it is based on faith and trust and waxes and wanes as people grow and change.

Like all relationships, there are conflicts, misunderstandings and huge gaps of information.

Like all genuine human relationships it cannot be truly measured, quantified and examined directly.

Interestingly, when you try to quantify it or are required to "prove" it exists, the relationship disappears. Do you routinely subject the relationships you have to extensive testing?

Imagine this telephone call.

"Before I marry you, I will need to hook you up to an eeg. You will look at pictures of me and I will measure the electrical impulses to see if there are spikes in the lobes of the brain that correspond to...hello, hello?"

The surest way to end love, is to ask someone to prove it.

(I remember years ago a friend who was wondering if he was actually in love with a girl, decided to add up the amount of money he had spent on her in the course of a month and then compare that to what he believed he had spent on other girls. When he approached this girl with the good news --he had spent quite a bit--she was less than impressed and you can imagine what eventually became of the relationship.)



Cheers

Why yes! "Love" can be measured and observed. Many altruistic behaviors in humans and animals can be measured and observed. Many altruistic behaviors have been attributed directly to genetic instructions.

Such "measurements" would be measurements of individual expressions of love, actions inspired by love--not love itself.

Cheers

of course that was only one example of Science being able to observe and duplicate the effects of genes and chemistry on Love.

That doesn't make it any less amazing.

The fact is, our Philosophy is dreaming of more and more possibilities for the explanation of why things are the way they are... to me the Bible limits my ability to dream those dreams.

Here is a question I have been pondering for a bit now... why is it that Religions think the all the souls of the Universe should be either locked into A Heaven or Hell?? And why do you think that will necessarily be a GOOD thing?

Maybe I don't want to go to heaven... God seems a bit too crazy and possessive for me. Maybe I don't want to hang out with him and all the True Believers (sheeples?). At least not for eternity.

Are there not unlimited possibilities for the soul after death? Could there not be some other path for the soul to take that might be more beneficial to the Soul or the Universe itself? Or are we just pawns in a War between good (GOD) and evil (DEVIL)and there lie our only choices? In which case it really doesn't matter as we don't have much of a choice in the matter being pawns and all.

This is an example of how the thought processes that when into creating the Bible are FAR too limiting for me and the Universe as we now understand it.

Here is a question I have been pondering for a bit now... why is it that Religions think the all the souls of the Universe should be either locked into A Heaven or Hell??

Sacred texts attempt to explain the afterlife in a way that our limited experience can process. At best they give us a tiny glimpse of what is to come.

Imagine a prof. of physics explaining quantum mechanics to a four year old.

Better yet, (accept a bit of anthropomorphism for this example)

Can the lumbering caterpillar with his hundreds of legs and with his eyes focused on the plant in front of him, truly comprehend what he will become and what it will be like to fly above the trees?

Cheers.

P.S. Will check in later. I have enjoyed the conversation, Donnerboy and others.

me too Grendel... gotta get to work... this caterpillar has plants to process..

***** Here is a question I have been pondering for a bit now... why is it that Religions think the all the souls of the Universe should be either locked into A Heaven or Hell?? ******

......its either 72 virgins and a river of wine.....

......or a room with your wife in it......

"Love can be measured and observed"
And yet all Richard Dawkins provides is an example of how love _can_ be explained. In science, I believe that is called a hypothesis. Yet, the existence of love is accepted by most as reality. Note that Dawkins takes a hypothesis and uses it as a club, yet he has not "proved" it using the scientific method.
To an outside observer, most philosophers make lousy scientists and most scientists make lousy philosophers. This is true exactly for the reasons Grendel states, that each must approach their subject in different ways and therefore instinctively requires that everything must be proved in that particular way. E.G., "Evidence would have to be based on the Scientific method of course". To a philosophers, indeed even a psychologist, such an approach is meaningless. Thus, this concept of "prove God exists" is really meaningless. We as a species are in our infancy in understanding reality and the universe. Hell, we can't even reconcile the micro universe with the macro universe. I would consider any "proof" of God's existence (or lack thereof) the same way I would consider the proof of something offered by a 2 year old.
Thus, I do find very objectionable the very delimited description/"proof" of God as listed in the Bible. The biggest thing I like about the Catholic Church is its core message as recited at every mass, "I _believe_ in God almighty ... ".

"cafeteria Catholic"
Grendel, tater, if you could explain from your respective vantage points, why is this so wrong and why you think taking this approach disqualifies one as a Catholic. The theology professors I had in college, Jesuits and Franciscans, emphasized that what Catholics _must_ believe is what has been stated ex-cathedra. All else really is the current interpretation of the CC. There are things Catholics believe now that would have gotten them burned at the stake by the CC 600 years ago. Most of what the CC "requires" is a result of what it, as an organization, believes to be true but, more importantly, believes will keep the CC homogenous. The CC itself says that the only "words" (beyond the Gospels) of Christ are what is ex-cathedra. It obviously can say, we're an organization and these are our rules and requirements. But I don't see how it can extend this to say one isn't a Catholic. This issue seems to be at the heart of many people's decision on whether to remain a Catholic.

FYI,

What a great question.

My understanding is that Catholicism is a belief that God reveals himself through scripture and the church. It is the latter point that separates Catholics from protestants.

Sola Fides et sola scriptura. "Faith and scripture alone" for Luther and the others.


Your question, and an extremely important one, is how much does one have to toe the "party line" in order to be considered a Catholic.

I asked a friend of mine who happened to be a Dominican what the answer was. His response was--that is a very good question and that I would get different answers depending upon which priests I talked to.

Honestly, I think most accept that the answer goes deeper than simply professing agreement and belief in in all the items of the Baltimore Catechism.

To be sure there are some items that seem absolutely necessary for all to accept--for example the divinity of Christ.

As far as the authority of the Church is concerned, I think the real practice of Catholics is to view the Church as a parent. (They don't call the pope, the pope "papa" for nothing.) The beliefs and ideas they present, most Catholics agree with and respect; yet there are some ideas that one does disagree with.

Most of us, however, had this relationship with our parents. We may have disagreed with our parents on some issues and rules, but there was an underlying respect that prevailed on both sides and neither one would ever agree that because of these disagreements that one was not a full fledged member of the family. At the same time, there may have been extreme acts or beliefs that would have dissolved the relationship.

For most, however, there are a few core values and beliefs that make one a member of a family, and these core beliefs are held as inviolable and sacred. (i.e Respect but not total agreement, placing the importance of the family above oneself or other less important relationships, etc.)

I don't know if that is a reasonable answer for you. I have little doubt that there are Catholics who will disagree, but by and large this is how the Catholics that I have know practice their faith.

Cheers

I'm a proud Catholic turned atheist!

"My understanding is that Catholicism is a belief that God reveals himself through scripture and the church. It is the latter point that separates Catholics from protestants." -Grendel


As a former Catholic I have to agree with that. And not just the Church, but the community itself. The belief in Catholicism is that it is through loving your neighbors and helping the community that we see the reflection of God. This is how we are created in "God's image". At least that is how I learned it. So a positive thing I can say about Catholicism is that it doesn't take the words in the bible literally and it supports a more effective and compassionate community.

I used to be Catholic, but gave it up for Lent...
(crickets chirping) but seriously, try the veal...
(more crickets chirping)...

Anyhoo, on a more serious note...

I actually see this as a wonderful thing.

Less Religious Idiots/Zealots in the World
= Better Chance for Peace/Tolerant/Sane society.

This is perhaps the Natural Progression of Religions. Every religion in History, except the current bunch,
has undergone this cycle of Birth, Rise to Popularity, Peak in Popularity, Fall in Popularity
(as people begin to see it is based on a false idea
or mythical God-like figure that never shows up again), and Rightful Ushering into Mediocrity...

But leave it to people, they will usher in the newest, latest, greatest thing since sliced bread,
and it will all start over again.

But with a "No Show God", and a host of "Devils" leading us, who really can blame the people?

I'm a proud Catholic turned atheist!

I respect your decision as I have many of your great posts. I truly do.

At the same time, I would be dishonest if I didn't say that a part of me hopes that your mind, and specifically your heart, has not forgotten the message behind the parable of the prodigal son.

Cheers

But with a "No Show God", and a host of "Devils" leading us, who really can blame the people?

I know your point was made half in jest, but if you believe that the devil shows up in our leaders, then it makes sense that you believe that God shows up among us also.

Unfortunately, it is the proud devils that make the headlines.

God when expressed through us is often characterized by good deeds by people with a profound sense of humility. Humble people tend not to show up in the news.

Cheers

"Catholicism is a belief that God reveals himself through scripture and the church"

Grendel, your example with the family is, in my belief, the one which is most under debate at this time. If I marry someone my family disapproves of, would it be more right for them to disown me or to accept my choice? Note I'm not broaching acts like murder. If I get divorced, should that be sufficient grounds for being excommunicated? The base issue is the "toe-the-line" which you mentioned. Or as I believe the present pope put it, inclusivity vs. exclusivity. The CC represents Christ on earth (that is their claim). The teaching I received viewed it more as the CC being the link to Christ. Either way, Christ looked for people to follow him, not for reasons to tell them to go away. The various ex-Cath's that I've spoken to fell away because they felt or knew that the latter was being done to them. Yet they still consider themselves Cath's.
I'm stumbling with my logic and explanations here. My intent is to deal with the core concept of this thread. I find that the present day situation re the CC is that people believe in what the CC (at it's core) believes, yet this pope's perspective is, play by my rules or leave. One of my brothers is a priest, a very conservative one (yes, we constantly disagree) and he believes that the pope's position is the only one that will save the CC from extinction. But if Catholicism's purpose is to reveal God, etc., how does that square with exclusivity?

"What if after you die you find out you were wrong and there truly is a God.
Then what? What extra effort does it take on one's part now while living to believe in God? How does just believing in God going to upset your life as it is now? Is just believing He exists going to stop you from watching the game this weekend? Cancel your dinner reservations? Delay your car from getting out of the repair shop any sooner? No."

Calfchris, this is classic Xtian bullshit. It was nonsense 400 years ago when Blaise Pascal proposed it, and it's still not worth consideration. How much did you have to pay for your education, anyway?

If I marry someone my family disapproves of, would it be more right for them to disown me or to accept my choice?

If you don't mind, for the sake of brevity, I am going to skip the analogies--interesting and important though they are and attempt to answer your question as directly as I possibly can.

Can you disagree with the Church and still be Catholic?

The simple answer is yes. If the church did not allow for some disagreement then there could never be movement in any direction.

Did all the Bishops who walked out of Vatican II agree with every aspect of it? Did they respect the encyclicals that were produced from it? Did they hold in their hearts that their position was, nevertheless, correct?
Did they still participate in the Catholic sacraments? Did they still consider themselves Catholic? Were they?

The answer to all of these questions, (save the first) by the way, is yes.

All professions of faith are personal and individual as are all occasions of sin. The church provides structure and guides the individual in gaining a relationship with God to avoid sin and gain grace. While the Church may make pronouncements on behaviors, it will always defer any ultimate acts of judgment of individuals to God as well as his gift of grace.

So what is my point? Catholics live by the teachings of the Church and recognise its authority. Recognizing its authority is not tantamount to surrendering all matters of conscience and choice to its rules. (That is the nature of Islam not Christianity). At the same time it is not recognizing yourself as the sole authority--that would not be a church. It is the relationship between the two which the Catholic navigates and no two relationships can ever be exactly the same. Each is individually navigated.

The compass points the way, but it is the wind (grace) and the ship (the individual) that decides the ultimate end of the journey.

I hope that made some sense. Run it by your brother and see what he says.

Cheers

Better still,

The compass points the way, but it is the wind (grace) and the ship (the individual) that decide the course and ultimate end of the journey.

Cheers

Grendel,
Your points are well spoken, as seems typical for you. I was pretty sure you were close in view with my brother, but it seems not to be the case. He believes that the pope has said "no". What we (CC) teach is what you are to believe and do. The issue is to what level does this extend, and that is why I have (forgive me) badgered you re this. Plus, in my experience, at the present, this is the biggest issue for Catholics who have fallen away (or are about to). They, none of them, regard themselves as the sole, or any kind, of authority.
Thank you for your responses.

While taking a walk one day a religious man heard an inner Radiant Voice from within command him to quit his job and to sell all his Earthly possessions. At first the man tried to simply ignore the Voice. But over the next several weeks he continued to hear the same commandment over and over. Finally, in an act of submission, the man quit his job and sold his car, his house and all it's contents.

The very next day while again taking a walk, the Voice commanded him to take all the money and go to Las Vegas.
Sceptically, even leerily, the man complied. He flew out to Vegas.
When he arrived on the Strip, the Voice commanded him to enter a large casino. And once he was inside the casino the Voice told him to go to a blackjack table and put ALL the money he had gotten from the sale of his property on one hand.
The man was nervous and tried to protest, but the Voice told him to Obey.
The man was dealt a seventeen. The dealer had a six exposed. Just then the Voice commanded him to take a hit card. The man tried to protest pointing out he he had seventeen and the dealer looked likely to bust. "Do it!" the Voice commanded. So the man took a hit. ... It was a two! The man now had nineteen. Just then the Voice boomed again... "Take another card!". The man was trembling and desperate, but he complied. It was an Ace!!! The man now had twenty. Once more the Voice boomed, "Take another card!!". At this point the simple and gentle man cried out, "but I have twenty, and the dealer only has a six exposed. It's crazy to take another card." But the Voice would hear none of it. "TAKE ANOTHER CARD. I COMMAND IT!!!". So the man signalled for another card. ... It was another ace! The man had twenty one. He then heard the inner Radiant Voice yell out in ecstacy and amazement, "Un-frickin-beleivable!!!"

Cbob,

Sounds like to me you're ready to join a Protestant church.

btw...wank quilt free.

This is such a bullshit thread... Either there are rats comming out of the wood work just to post or a lot of the regulars are getting new sign ins.

The problem with "most" churches in America is at some point the leader figures out that there is more than just a good living to be earned, IT'S FUCKING TAX FREE!

Here, check out this scam artist...

youtube.com

The issue is to what level does this extend, and that is why I have (forgive me) badgered you re this. Plus, in my experience, at the present, this is the biggest issue for Catholics who have fallen away (or are about to). They, none of them, regard themselves as the sole, or any kind, of authority.
Thank you for your responses.


FYI,

You asked important questions and ones that individuals in the Church and the Church as a whole need to ask.

There does not seem to be a hard and fast rule that is applied equally to all. While this may not sound right, I am not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing. This kind of grey area, allows for some kind flexibility.

Ultimately, the Church needs to always hold this piece of wisdom from the gospels close to its soul.

"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."

Thanks for the interesting dicussion and questions.
Cheers

Everything God does and has done was by complete organization. Our bodies, atoms, atmosphere, solar systems, all perfectly organized. You can't say organized religion is false just because so many produce rotten fruit. The key is to find the one that makes people far better and promote its followers to think, learn and become something better than they were. Read your bible and you will see for yourself what is right and good.

Besides, there is one that is the fastest growing in all the world, currently the 4th largest in the US...soon the third.

Everything God does and has done was by complete organization

Who made God?



Who made God?

POSTED BY GOATMAN



Whooaa Now you've done it.............

Read your bible and you will see for yourself what is right and good.

I know the Bible from cover to cover. The freakin book must have been written by demons. It's mythologies could not be more obvious.

Read your bible and you will see for yourself what is right and good.

"I know the Bible from cover to cover. The freakin book must have been written by demons. It's mythologies could not be more obvious."


-You Can Call Me Ray Or You Can Call Me Slow Burn



Uh Ray, I think the Bible cover got switched over to your Rolling Stones Biography.


Who made God?

What is north of the North Pole?


Cheers

I do feel western religion extremist have taken over the churches and the structure they keep is made only to preach to the masses.

The individual is left reciting language from people preaching and not thoughts they learned and formed on their own.

I don't have a problem with religious faith or agnostic beliefs as long is it's not blind and one understands the nature and limitations of dogmatic thinking.

Morals and ethics are things all of us are born with-religion it not the only avenue that endorses them

Hey Donnerboy, 50,000 errors? I would agree there are errors, but can you demonstrate how such could be the case for a book that has roughly 2,000 pages? This would be about 25 errors per page.

So scholarboy, show us! Pick a page and show us!



Posted by DoubtingThomas at 2008-02-27 12:48 PM |


hmmm so nice of you to admit that the Bible is NOT the inerrant Word of God.

Actually some scholars say there are even more.

this from a "Christian" website trying (desperately) to refute Ehrman:

answersforthefaith.com

To refute Bart they actually have to tell the truth...

The Bible is Full of Errors!

1. There are over 200,000 variants in the manuscripts extant.

2. Over 99% involve spelling, word order, or dropped words and phrases.

3. All easily resolved by comparing the available manuscripts.

4. Only 1% have any significance.

5. Only .5% are disputed in any way.

6. There are 8,099 verses in the NT.

7. Less than 40 verses are in any real dispute. (leaving out the easily resolved variants-like Mark 16:9-20, Luke 7:53-8:12, I John 5:7-8)


so there you have it. I don't necessarily agree with this website but I use it as it is supposedly by a "True Believer".

Even a Christian scholar has been forced to admit to the fact that there are errors in the Inerrant Wrod of God.

So now we will quibble over which are "important" errors.

so what is .5% of 200,000 ? That is about 1000 disputed errors according to a Christian Scholar.

How do the Christians resolve these errors? By using other error filled texts as there are NO Originals.

So the fact is you are not getting the original word even if it really was from a God. You are getting Translations of Translations that have been influenced by the men (scribes) who copied them.

Those Men had their own motives and if you choose not to try and understand the History of that text and what those motives were you will never understand the Truth.

As for your page and verse...there are many but here is food for thought from another Christian apologist website:

Finally, regarding 1 John 5:7-8, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the "Trinitarian formula," since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. One wonders why this passage is even discussed in Ehrman's book. The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts. The passage made its way into our Bibles through political pressure, appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew that it is not authentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 affirmed explicitly the Trinity! How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn't get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Chalcedon's statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they saw in the NT.

benwitherington.blogspot.com

I kindly give you the whole quote...the gist of which involves the Holy Trinity. Note the discussion of how a passage made its way into the bible through POLITICAL PRESSURE!


Good luck sorting the Wheat from that Chaff.

LOL...

The problem with you Donnerboy is that you buy into the same assumption inerrantists make of the bible...namely, that it must be free of spelling errors and variants to bear witness to truth. I'm sure you'll give the NY Times a pass on that requirement, however.

By the way, 200,000 variants does not equate to 200,000 errors. I'll let you figure that one out.

And I'm fully aware of the Complutensian comma in in 1 John. But are you? I've even read Ehrman's book, and am quite familiar with his great teacher Metzger. Have you read Ehrman's book?

By the way, I'm still waiting for some confirmation on 50,000 errors.

You're a mile wide but an inch deep.



you take a horse to water but you can't make him drink...

I'm sure you'll give the NY Times a pass on that requirement, however.

how funny is dat! No one I know has ever claimed that the NYT is the Inerrant Word of God! Even so I be the NTY has less errors per 2000 pages than the Bible.

And 200,000 variants does equate to 200,000 errors if you are claiming that the text has been dictated by God and is Inerrant. But, all I have to do is show that ONE ERROR to prove my point.

No one does possess the original writings, and there are errors, omissions, additions, and even some well-documented intentional changes in the ancient manuscripts. Textual critics call these points of difference in ancient manuscripts "textual variants"--places where one ancient copy differs from others because of a copying abnormality. As uncomfortable as this might make you feel, it would be foolish to pretend that no difficulty exists in extracting the text of Scripture from these ancient documents.

You claim that the Bible is Inerrant... I show you proof of the errors. So now (as predicted) you quibble over what is an error and whether it is significant.

to me that is immaterial at this point. We could argue each and every error (but this has already been done over and over) yet you will still refuse to believe that the text you are relying on is not the Inerrant Word of God.

The fact, is you do not have the original text and the text you are relying on has been corrupted by the influence of mere men. Much of the original wording of the New Testament has been "lost" through the inaccuracies of the early scribes who hand-copied the text.

If your God wanted to get a message to me why did he allow it to be corrupted in this way by mere men?

Here is some interesting news YOU can use too.. the Koran is also probably a compilation of various texts too.

www.atimes.com

Fact is, you will never be able to prove that God manifested himself one day as a Man named Jesus OR that a Resurrection ever occurred.

Its a myth and the material you rely on to substantiate that myth is NOT from a God but from Men.

Men with an agenda.


But, you can lead a horse to water but a donkey is still an ASS.


From the book Misquoting Jesus

more discussion of the "variants"

With this abundance of evidence, what can we say about the total number of variants known today? Scholars differ significantly in their estimates--some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (pp. 89-90).


"You claim that the Bible is Inerrant... I show you proof of the errors. So now (as predicted) you quibble over what is an error and whether it is significant."


Did I say I believed in inerrancy? Or is it that you need for me to believe in inerrancy. For the record I do not hold to inerrancy.

Again, please demonstrate that "variants" = "error." You obviously have little knowledge of ancient texts...biblical or otherwise. Furthermore you confirm what I said in a previous post...you assume the same logic as the inerrantist when it comes to truth.

Also, your understanding of the word/concept "proof" is pretty weak. Science doesn't even share your view. But you probably have lack of knowledge there too.

Donnerboy, you're just one more example of an anti-religious hack who sets up religion as his whipping boy to deal with your unresolved guilt/shame. Or perhaps you're just overcompensating for something?


I went from a Cathlolic, to Jewish, to a Humanist

"...you buy into the same assumption inerrantists make of the bible...namely, that it must be free of spelling errors"

Do you understand the definition of the word "inerrancy"?

"Do you understand the definition of the word "inerrancy"? "

Yes! The belief that the Bible is free from all error.

And do you understand that by insisting on an error free bible yourself you're assumptions are no different than the fundamentalist Christian you decry?



Donner,

To further your comment about the book Misquoting Jesus, I was struck by the fact the author mentioned that the story of the woman who was being stoned and where Jesus said, "you who are without sin cast the first stone" and he told the woman to "sin no more" is not in the earliest manuscript, the author claims.

That's a pretty serious statement by the author considering that story is one of the cornerstones of much of what is believed about Jesus.

Personally, I am of the opinion no translations today are 100% perfect or without error. The fact that people talk about this or that error in the Bible doesn't bother me.

Perhaps the original writings were perfectly inspired by God, but there is usually no way to perfectly translate from one language to another 100% perfectly. Most languages are rich with connotations as well as denotations of words and phrases and perfect translations are not possible that pick up every single nuance.

Many Christians believe their Bible is the perfect word of God. Are ALL translations the perfect word of God or just some? Is English the official language of Christianity? What about people who speak other languages? Are all translations the perfect will of God?

Personally, I suspect the Christian Bible that is accepted today by Protestants is most likely not finished anyway. I believe at some time in the future there will be more changes to the Christian Bible that will be accepted.

That's my opinion...my conservative Christian friends consider my opinion to be horribly wrong.

DT-

I showed you that the Bible has between 200,000-400,000 "variants".

Variants is a nice way of saying errors...variations from the Original. Some of these "variants" are more significant than others but now that you CAN ADMIT that they exist then a real discussion can proceed.

You can quibble with the definition if you like...then you can get frustrated with the facts and then attack the messenger as is the wont of most debaters that cannot address the facts.

But, now that you fully admit that the Bible does indeed have errors then we are able to have an intelligent discussion concerning what the actual text of the scriptures that the bible is based on.

Now you have not proven one thing I have said is wrong have you? so you attempt to make out like I have some problem.

I do have a problem.

I have a problem with those who accept as "faith" a "truth" attributed to a God but that appears to have been made up by men and try to preach to others as though they know some deep secret that others cannot know without being a "true believer".

AS PT Barnum said.. there is a sucker born everyday.

Hurts to be a sucker huh DT?

Now go ahead and lash out at me...if it makes you feel better.

I didn't create the problem I am only pointing it out...I guess that makes me a anti-religious hack.

Here is another interesting fact...and your handle is what made me think of it.

There are several religious texts that should be in the "bible" but are not.

Care to address why the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Thomas are not eligible to be in the bible?

Or how a bout the gospel of Judas?

would you not think these folks have something important to say about the whole thing?

Could it be that what they say does not "conform" to what Christians think they should say? We would want to confuse the poor Christians!

So the deck is stacked for Christians from the start.

You can only KNOW what "conforms" to what some MEN think God would want us to know...

how special...




"We would want to confuse the poor Christians!"

should be

We would NOT want to confuse the poor Christians!

Donner,

Whether or not the Bible is without error, has no impact on my opinion of Jesus Christ. The spirtual aspect of my faith is real to me whether or not I believe a book is without error.

I believe He must have performed some supernational acts. Whether or not the Gospels tell the stories in the same order or all the details match perfectly doesn't bother me.

I sort of figure where there's smoke, there's fire. Jesus must have done some things that were considered supernatural. Did he heal the sick? Probably. Did he bring the dead back to life? Why not? It's up to each of us to look in our heart and come to a decision. If you want proof, you'll never have it.

spiritual aspect of my "faith" tells me that something is basically wrong with a God who can't get his facts straight.

Apparently God failed Physics class.

Genesis 1

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So on the first day God Created Light

yet the Sun was not created until the fourth day...so we had DAY AND NIGHT BUT NO SUN YET!

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

On the fourth day he created the Sun!

Basic Physics and Astronomy has shown us how the solar system is formed... the Sun is formed first and the planets congeal out of the material around the Sun!

This is one clear cut ERROR right in the first chapter of your sacred text.

I don't care if God was talking to uneducated people thousands of years ago... everything he said should be true no matter how far backward or forwards in time you go. That would be the nature of God.

To bring this discussion back to the beginning of this thread.

You want to know why 44% of Americans leave their childhood religion behind I am telling you. Christianity is a childish religion as is Islam and when intelligent folk grow up and find out the Truth they move on.

Grendel says that there more things under heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in my Philosophy?

Ha! (he laughs right in your face he laughs!) you cannot imagine what I have dreamt of and the Bible doesn't begin to approach the Glory of what can be but for the limitations placed upon Man by religion.

But, I do not profess to be a God either. I am but a man. And I have been alloted but a hundred years or more but probably less.

And when I die and they lay me to rest all I want is for my soul to be released back into the Universe from which it came. Thankful for chance to stand up and look around in wonder and experience the Glory of the Cosmos that created me.

Nothing more... nothing less. No God required.






Religion is for people who do not have any discernible intelligence. Who have forfeited reason and rationality for magical wish-think.

In short, religion is for...Morons.

Or perhaps you're just overcompensating for something?




Posted by DoubtingThomas at 2008-02-28 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You'd better look again at who's grasping for straws or anything to hold on to for that matter.

Your faith in the written pages of a book belong to you. I have no problem with that. But then again I don't care what Wiccans beleive or any other group.

You are sly like a sloth in your words to Donner but your motives are as far from your faith as darkness is from bright light...
Your motive is to win an argument... See, I know the bible. I've been cover to cover many times.

I believe He must have performed some supernational acts.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2008-02-28 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hell, I go to the French Quarter for Mardi Gras every year and see more of that shit than I can recall.

I know the bible. I've been cover to cover many times.

So, I find it amusing you think it needs defending.

By defending only shows your questioning your own faith in the organization.

Go read ACTS of the Apostles... There was a guy there named Simon... He could do some hocus pocus shit too.

What is north of the North Pole?

A Stephen Hawking line. I've always liked that one. But it's an anology of extradimensional space represented in three dimensions, not God.

I still wonder who made god? I believe the line that Jethro Tull had on the back of their album "Aqualung" ( and got it banned from my sophomore English class when the teach saw it) "In the beginning, man created God"

"In the beginning, man created God"

The pyramids should remind us that the belief in an afterlife long preceded Christianity. If there is a reason why pagans would be wrong and Christians be right, I can't think of any. By Christian logic, it didn't work for the Egyptians because they had the wrong name for God.

God gave humans the power of understanding good and evil, right and wrong.

The traffic rules and the jails in the country proves the point. Basic.

A Stephen Hawking line. I've always liked that one. But it's an anology of extradimensional space represented in three dimensions, not God.

Yes, and the point is that it is a point less question because it shows a lack of understanding of the very elements of the question--the nature of north and "northness."

In a similar fashion, by the very definition of God in the Western tradition, God is not created-thus that cannot be one of his attributes.

To ask who created God is to ignore this definition.

That being said, you are certainly free to do so, but when you ask your question you are no longer really talking about the Judeo-Christian God as understood.

Back to the Hawking quote: to attempt to apply concepts of north and south to outer space is pointless because outer space does not have these attributes. To apply a question which assumes the concept of God as a created being is pointless because God does not have the attribute.

Cheers

Grendel says that there more things under heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in my Philosophy?

Actually Shakespeare said it.

Ha! (he laughs right in your face he laughs!) you cannot imagine what I have dreamt of and the Bible doesn't begin to approach the Glory of what can be but for the limitations placed upon Man by religion.

I cannot know what you have imagined, but your imagination, as is the imagination of all humans beings, is limited. You cannot imagine anything that does not have some precedent in the world that you have experienced. Even if you imagine the most exotic creature, you will still rely on attributes of real creatures or objects that you have experienced in order to imagine it.

Man is indeed limited by his senses, him imagination and intellect; when sacred texts like the bible attempt to examine what is beyond the realm of his experience it is what we call the sublime--this is often what sacred texts are about. In order to bring it to a level we can comprehend, it often has to rely on human experience to explain it. When God speaks to humanity, he uses human writers to speak to us on our level and in an idiom that we can understand.


Limitations you say. Hmmm. According to the Judeo-Christian tradition humanity can share in the nature of the divine by virtue of the incarnation. This you find limiting.

I think you need to label it as limiting, because it helps justify your rejection of it.

All I can say is believe it or don't believe it, that's fine, but these criticisms seem lame.

Cheers

I still wonder who made god? I believe the line that Jethro Tull had on the back of their album "Aqualung" ( and got it banned from my sophomore English class when the teach saw it) "In the beginning, man created God"

Posted by goatman at 2008-02-28 09:57 PM | Reply

If all mankind were to go extinct would God still exist?

Who would care?

The theory of the Multiverse where there are an infinite number of Universes brings to light some interesting questions.

Is God the God of just our Universe? Does each Universe have its own "little" God, are there an infinite number of Gods or is there one big God in charge of all the Universes?

The theory of the Multiverse also gives you an understanding of how to "steer" your own Universe. There is an infinite number of Universes branching off from our own at any instant.

We can at any instant choose to "steer" the course of events within our sphere of influence thereby adjusting the "course" of the Universe. Clever little monkeys we are!

Thinking of it this way I do not like the Universe into which George Bush has taken us which is why I like Obama so much... he has the strength to help us all steer our way back to a better Universe.

At least here on Earth. And in this Universe.

Other Universes may not work the same way, of course, depending on how far away from ours they are.

I think I will stop there as this theory can branch off into an infinite number of directions and discussions.

Again this is not my theory either ... but it seems to work on many levels, so far.

If you are interested in the Multiple Universe Theory there is an awesome Nova show called

The Elegant Universe

btw- Grendel Of course I knew that was Shakespeare you quoted him...and the Universe has gotten larger since Shakespeare wrote those words... and as the theory of Multiple Universes shows you (or should) how much more different things could be but for the flapping of those butterfly wings in South America.

If may be true that You cannot imagine anything that does not have some precedent in the world that you have experienced.

But we do now know there is an infinite number of ways that the Multiverse can be different from our own and I don't need to be able to imagine each and every one of them to know that they exist.

I just find it odd that the God of THIS Universe decided we should live one hundred years or more but probably less and if we can survive it long enough to read the Bible and get the "Good News" and just believe in him with no proof (poor Mohter Teresa) then after we are DEAD we can spend ETERNITY with him and we get to share in the nature of the divine by virtue of the incarnation

oh joy! I don't think you will be seeing me there much except maybe to visit and check in on this God guy and you sheeple dudes and dudesses.

But we do now know there is an infinite number of ways that the Multiverse can be different from our own and I don't need to be able to imagine each and every one of them to know that they exist.

Lets get his right. You cannot believe in God because there is no proof, but it seems like in the blink of an eye you will accept lock, stock and barrel the existence of a multiverse even though no proof can be offered?


I just find it odd that the God of THIS Universe decided we should live one hundred years or more but probably less and if we can survive it long enough to read the Bible and get the "Good News" and just believe in him with no proof (poor Mohter Teresa) then after we are DEAD we can spend ETERNITY with him and we get to share in the nature of the divine by virtue of the incarnation


oh joy! I don't think you will be seeing me there much except maybe to visit and check in on this God guy and you sheeple dudes and dudesses.


God, as comprehended by most, exists outside of the universe--this one or anyone if the multi-verse exists. Why would you assume that if this multi-verse exists that God is not the creator of it? Why would you limit your imagination of what God could be?

BTW, your post reminded me of a passage from the Gospel of John.

"In my Father's house there are many rooms."



I just find it odd that the God of THIS Universe decided we should live one hundred years or more but probably less and if we can survive it long enough to read the Bible and get the "Good News" and just believe in him with no proof (poor Mohter Teresa) then after we are DEAD we can spend ETERNITY with him and we get to share in the nature of the divine by virtue of the incarnation
I don't think you will be seeing me there much except maybe to visit and check in on this God guy and you sheeple dudes and dudesses.


Odd? That is because you are limiting your understanding of it to what You think might make
sense.



Cheers

but it seems like in the blink of an eye you will accept lock, stock and barrel the existence of a multiverse even though no proof can be offered?

I didn't say I "accepted" it...and it is a theory that has been developed over decades not the "blink of an eye". See the documentary I linked to. It is a result of string theory. It was an attempt to show you that there are thngs we monkeys dream of that poor Horatio never had a clue of.

I was inteding to point out an interesting theory that raised many questions about God...

"In my Father's house there are many rooms."


I like that... like I always said... there is truth in the bible...just not all of it.

That is because you are limiting your understanding of it to what You think might make
sense.


well, it is my soul ... it belongs to me... if the God of the Bible doesn't want make "sense" to me that soul that he wants to "worship" him... who's fault is that?

Is it mine or a God who can't get a decent message through the very space and time continuum that he supposedly created. When a communication fails is it the sender or the receivers fault?

IN this case I would blame the sender as he supposedly has all the control and he invented the rules of this game.

well, it is my soul ... it belongs to me... if the God of the Bible doesn't want make "sense" to me that soul that he wants to "worship" him... who's fault is that?

Is it mine or a God who can't get a decent message through the very space and time continuum that he supposedly created. When a communication fails is it the sender or the receivers fault?

IN this case I would blame the sender as he supposedly has all the control and he invented the rules of this game.


No one person is totally responsible for a relationship. In an act of communication neither the sender nor the receiver is totally responsible.

That you wish to put all the responsibility on God shows that you are not interested in the relationship because you will bring nothing to it. Somehow this is God's fault?

The problem is not that the message isn't decent, but that your individual attitude does not make you receptive to it. You wish to blame God for your attitude? God didn't create an automaton. He created a person with the ability to choose. You have that ability and you have chosen to reject the message.

Perhaps this final analogy will clarify my point.

Have you ever been the parent of a teenager? If so you will know that you will struggle to get some advice or wisdom across in the clearest and best way possible only to have it rejected time after time.

As a parent you created this person, fashioned his or her values and upbringing. Somehow, you still cannot get across a simple lesson about life. Your ideas are accused of being out of date and hopelessly flawed.

One day the teenager surprise you. He or she voices the wisdom of your ideas (Sometimes as if they came up with it on their own.) What changed? Your message? No. Their attitude toward it changed. They opened their minds instead of closed them. Usually because they move from a knee jerk rebellion to everything the old man has to say to considering maybe, just maybe, the crazy old guy might be right.

Consider your own attitude toward what messages are being sent your way. (BTW Sacred texts are only one way--albeit an important way--in which the message is sent.)

Thanks for the conversation. It has been a pleasure.

PAX




Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable