Did Jesus judge or not judge?

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Emproph

What evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit (God) inspired the words of the Bible in the first place?

2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

2 Peter 1:21 (King James Version)
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Rick

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Rick336

2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

2 Peter 1:21 (King James Version)
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Rick

That's not evidence, that's circular logic.

Joe is not a liar.
How do I know Joe is not a liar?
Joe told me he is not a liar.

The Bible is true.
How do I know the Bible is true?
The Bible says that it's true.

If "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," why would God warn not to cause error to what cannot contain error?

Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Wouldn't that be an error?

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Emproph

That's not evidence, that's circular logic.

Joe is not a liar.
How do I know Joe is not a liar?
Joe told me he is not a liar.

The Bible is true.
How do I know the Bible is true?
The Bible says that it's true.

Yes. That's my point exactly. The Bible is not the word of God. It is the word of men, ancient men who lived during a time when superstition was the rule, not the exception. The Bible was written during a time when it was common to believe that the earth was flat, sea monsters ruled the oceans, and witches flew through the sky at night.

So when the Bible says it is inspired by God, we have no evidence to back that up.

And when the Bible says that a donkey talked, logic tells us that animals can't talk.

And when the Bible says that a stick magically turned into a snake, common sense tells us that this is impossible.

And when the Bible tells us that a river turned into blood, or that Moses had a magic wand, a flood covered the entire earth, a burning bush gave advice, millions of animals rode on a boat, a sea parted down the middle, food rained from the sky for forty years, the sun stood still, a woman came from a man's rib, a star gave directions, a man lived inside a fish for three days, dead people walked the earth,.... common sense requires that we question the validity of these stories.

And when opponents of same sex marriage tell us that God hates homosexuality and that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible says so, we need to question the validity of their beliefs.

But what I hear Christians saying is, "You have no right to question the word of God. By questioning the word of God you are disrespecting my beliefs and are being insensitive and hostile. The problem is not with the word of God, the problem is you."

Almost without fail, when non-believers start asking questions about the word of God, the debate is turned to blame the one asking the questions.

Several months ago in this forum I asked the question, "Why did God send his son to earth as a blood sacrifice so that we could all be saved from hell, when God could have easily made us all sin-proof to begin with?"

The question was never answered. Instead I was called a simple-minded jerk and was told that I was only trying to stir up trouble.

Isn't that exactly what the opponents of same sex marriage are accusing us of doing? Of course it is. They accuse us of being anti-Christian by questioning the word of God. Why not ask our opponents to stop blaming us for being trouble-makers and to show us what evidence they have that God actually said that homosexuality is wrong?

If the Bible is full of contradictions, superstitions, and errors, then how can it be trustworthy about homosexuality? Where’s the evidence to support the validity of “the word of God?” about homosexuality or anything else if the Bible is wrong about so many other things?

In other words, instead of pointing blame at the ones asking the questions, why not just answer the questions?

Rick

[awediot]

Are there any Christians on this site anymore?

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

Rick,

One of the saddest things for me as a Christian is that I see so many Christians who are absolutely unwilling to ever consider that the opinions and beliefs of others might be valid. They would not be willing to look at something in a new way no matter how convincing the evidence or how persuasive the story.

The oppression of gays by so many churches has stemmed from this. So many conservative Christians have held onto the idea that being gay is sinful. They are unwilling to even consider the possibility that being gay is part of God's plan for some of us. Despite knowing fine gay Christian people, despite the lack of Biblical evidence to support their position, despite the findings of science, they refuse even to consider any opinions that contradict thier own.

I see you on the opposite side of that coin. You seem resistant to even consider that their might be some worth in Christianity and that the Bible might have something of value.

I respect your right to think the way you do. You have a lot of valuable insight and experience. But I see you as totally unwiling even to enetertain the idea that those of us who value the Bible and the Christian faith might have some validity to the way that we believe.

You have to admit that the Christians you have met on these forums have been exceptionally understanding and non-argumentative. We have been wiling to look at your point of view and consider what you have to say. We have even agreed with a lot of your opinions. I ask that you give our ideas the same consideration we have given yours.

But on to the points you have made:

I don't believe that anyone is going to hell because they don't "get it right". In fact no one "gets it right". Some many people think they have to know and believe certain things to be saved. Belief is not in things; it is not in teachings and doctrines. We believe in the love of God that was shown to us through the work of Christ.

The Bible saves no one. The Bible is not God. It is only a partial and imperfect glimpse into the wonder that is God.

I believe that the Bible is unclear simply because God cannot be understood. I remember my high school chemistry teacher talking about electron shells. There are two electrons in orbit around the nucleus in the first shell. There are eight electrons in orbit in the second shell, etc. Then she said that there really are no shells and orbits at all, but in order to be more easily understood, the whole electron shell concept was devised to explain and illustrate the much more complex concept of quantam mechanics. I was totally unable to grasp the idea of quantam mechanics at the time (still am).

Likewise I think in the Bible God provides for us many different ways at looking at him. The Bible is an incomplete and simplified view of God. We are unable to grasp the majesty of God. We must be content in our human understanding to only get impartial understanding of God.

Why doesn't the Holy Spirit make things clear and plain? She can't make them clear and understood by human beings; we have not the experience or capability to understand.

Try explaining the idea of quantam mechanics or the ideas of string theory to elementry school students. Their minds are based in the physical here and now (The "concrete operational" stage in Paiget's stages of thinking). They are incapable of understanding it. But they can grasp that the universe operates in a wonderful way that is incomprehensible. The illustrations that a teacher uses to explain and illustrate these concepts are partial and imperfect, but they illustrate one aspect of the concept.

If the workings of God were totally clear and easily understood, God would be pretty small indeed.

Pablo,

Your coming out of the closet in 2008 took a lot of courage and is a wonderful example for others who are struggling with self-acceptance who visit this forum. For that you have my deep respect.

I also think that you are very intelligent and express yourself very eloquently on this forum. I enjoy reading your posts.

But I disagree with you on the subject of scripture.

Originally Posted by Pablo

I respect your right to think the way you do. You have a lot of valuable insight and experience. But I see you as totally unwiling even to enetertain the idea that those of us who value the Bible and the Christian faith might have some validity to the way that we believe.

That's not entirely true. I have stated on this forum that scripture does have some good points and that Christianity has contributed to a lot of positive things.

Originally Posted by Pablo

You have to admit that the Christians you have met on these forums have been exceptionally understanding and non-argumentative. We have been wiling to look at your point of view and consider what you have to say. We have even agreed with a lot of your opinions. I ask that you give our ideas the same consideration we have given yours.

I do give your views consideration. But I am stating what I believe to be true or not true. I'm saying, "Look at this. How can this be true?"

In any discussions about religion (or politics), our analyzing and explaining our positions is part of the debate. You state your position. I state mine. That goes on in public forums all over the internet.

Originally Posted by Pablo

I don't believe that anyone is going to hell because they don't "get it right"......We believe in the love of God that was shown to us through the work of Christ.

So you don't believe in hell? The Bible says that hell is waiting for those who don't believe in Jesus. According to scripture, the existence of hell is the whole reason Jesus came to earth to begin with; to save us from it.

God created hell and then sent his son down to earth to be sacrificed so that we can be saved from the hell that God himself created to begin with.

And then, if we are unfortunate to be born in Iran or Iraq and believe in Allah as the billions of others around us do, then we will spend eternity suffering the torment and tortures of hell as our punishment for being born in the wrong location.

That makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Pablo

I believe that the Bible is unclear simply because God cannot be understood.

And according to scripture, that's the way God wants it.

The gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it. - Luke 13.24

If God so loves the world, why make it so difficult to find heaven?

Originally Posted by Pablo

If the workings of God were totally clear and easily understood, God would be pretty small indeed.

I don't understand what you mean here.



Rick

[tdogg]

I have a few questions for God:

If you really love us, and created people so you could have us around, why would you create this horrible thing called hell and throw these people, that you say you love, into it to burn and be tormented for eternity?

Why would you create two humans, place them into a garden of wonder, show them and tell them about the tree you don't want them to touch, and they admonish them to never ever eat the lovely fruit from that wonderful tree, even though it will give you greater knowledge. Makes no sense.

How is it that you were unable to create two perfect human beings, but was able to give your 'word' to men, have them rewrite it, translate and re-translate it, translate it into various languages, then translate it into various meanings, yet it's supposed to mean the same thing? The first sound much easier to accomplish.

Ok, I have a lot more questions for you (such as world hunger, war, death, poverty, disease and what the hell were you thinking having dogs live only 10-15 years????) but for now, the above will do. I believe in you, but I think much of what I read in the bible just makes no sense to me.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by tdogg

I have a few questions for God:

DISCLAIMER>>> Uhm, er yeah, well, I'm not God...(I know you know that. And I want it know that I know it... i don't even want to be God. I have a tough time with what little power He's given me... But, I supposed to try to advocate for God, and unwillingly am called to try to answer what I can, what I understand of Him and his truths... So, here goes> what I've come to believe at this point in my life... God's answers will vary, as I'm no doubt at least somewhat wrong, and probably totally)

DISCLAIMER 2... I'd offer the predictable glib answer "well ask Him yourself." but we're both obviously past that...

If you really love us, and created people so you could have us around, why would you create this horrible thing called hell and throw these people, that you say you love, into it to burn and be tormented for eternity?

The true nature and experience of Hell is debatable... I do not believe it is a "torture chamber of an agaony beyonf imagination", or a literal lake of teeth gnashing fire... That IMO makes God a sadist...

I believe simply that for those who see God and understand what "Heaven" demands of us, and do not want it, what God allows them to walk away into, to escape, and defeat Him, is what we've dubbed "Hell". It is Pride fulfilled and the preference of Self. It is the point of no return and preference for freedom failure grants... He doesn't cast anyone there. We will turn to it, hide in it, of our own will. It exists because we want it to, not God...

It is the logical conclusion of being able to choose to reject Him, and it breaks his heart... Many Christians think it is possible that annihilation into our preborn, non-being state will end even that... I don't know.

Why would you create two humans, place them into a garden of wonder, show them and tell them about the tree you don't want them to touch, and they admonish them to never ever eat the lovely fruit from that wonderful tree, even though it will give you greater knowledge. Makes no sense.

When even two sentient, self-aware and independently motivated beings merely exist, it is inevitable that they will eventually clash and disagree about something... That is the unavoidable consequence of God creating a creature capable of rcognizing Him, and recognizing it Self as separate from Him... God created for a purpose and has enacted a stream of events to get himself there... We can agree to "go with the flow", or at any arbitrary point, diverge from it and defy His will... This is the scenario that the Garden and description of the fall illustrates...

Simply, God said "Don't..." and the Self was challenged. The ability to question, doubt, act on our pride and ambition, all good qualities that didn't come from the fall, but stem from carrying His "Image", were catalyzed by that unheard word...and exploited by the serpent. It was the introduction of real choice, the imbuing of power and responsibility and consequence, and i believe God not only knew we'd rebel, but designed us specifically to do so...

We didn't fall, we were pushed. And God knew it was the only thing that could give us an understanding and appreciation of Him and the Garden, but that our growth away from Him would naturally hurt us...

It was not a test, nor an act He could even logically forbid. It was Him handing us the scissors and letting us cut the umbilical ourselves.

How is it that you were unable to create two perfect human beings,

"Perfect", like "omni-ness" and "timeless" and even beauty or love, is a transcendent, abstract concept that we can't even pretend to understand in the way a God would... We really can't say that the capacity of A&E to rebel, or that their choice to do so, were "imperfect"... Or maybe it was, and all this may be the very best way for God to create "Perfection"...

We are not the ends. We are tools He is using to achieve some goal we do not fully comprehend.

but was able to give your 'word' to men, have them rewrite it, translate and re-translate it, translate it into various languages, then translate it into various meanings, yet it's supposed to mean the same thing? The first sound much easier to accomplish.

I'm no inerrantist. It is an impossible claim to make about a text which openly uses metaphor and analogy with the intent a reader must interpret at least some of it personally (or with the help of the Holy Spirit, as it describes)...I believe it to be inspired, that all sincere translations contain the immutable truth of our means to salvation, the bridge back to Him, and what it takes to forge an individual relationship with God directly. The "gist" of it has remained elemental, witnessed by and agreed upon in the Body of Christ as believers since it's conception. There are tremendous difference of interpretation which fragments the body into different parts as denominations, but they will all agree that Jesus Christ is God manifest, that His sacrificial death on the cross and resurrection actually happened and is the way to salvation as a payment and forgiving grace of our sins, or they simply will either stop calling themselves Christian, or blatantly pervert the long held, orthodox and core beliefs, and pursue a know heretical sect.

The Bible contains what we need to know...and them some. We tear one another apart over legalism and nonsalvational detail, not usually over Jesus Christ Himself (the Old testament is a whole different matter which shifts, not contradicts His dealings with us)

Ok, I have a lot more questions for you (such as world hunger, war, death, poverty, disease and what the hell were you thinking having dogs live only 10-15 years????) but for now, the above will do. I believe in you, but I think much of what I read in the bible just makes no sense to me.

Understandable... I've got questions too (and some pretty f'd up answers that send the average Christian slinking from the room)... You're astute enough to know you can't know it all and perhaps do just need to be satisfied shrugging off some questions and trust that God is good and has His reasons... but I hate that answer and find the blindness of faith to not be a "virtue" we should pursue, but unwillingly acquiesce to at times... I hate even worse the "Who are you O man to question God..." bs that radiates from mind controlling cults... God invites and created us to honestly and humbly ask things about Him. Nothing is off limits as far as I'm concerned... He may say "none of your business" or "you won't understand", but it is to protect and nourish me in a higher way I couldn't grasp, not because He has anything to hide...

Also, when you ask God about poverty, war, harm...man's inhumanity to man, also ask of humanity why we do it to one another... God gave us the mind's and tools and resources to solve many of the ills we blame on Him, and we use food as a weapon and medicine as a status symbol... Why do we continue to make life so much harder and painful on ourselves than we need to? Why do we still claim ignorance and await some revelation of what to do?

Why do atheists often seem to argue for God as long as He's evil and to blame?


<<< and yeah yeah, funny how when God talks it's always some arrogant human's mouth moving...

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by awediot

Why do atheists often seem to argue for God as long as He's evil and to blame?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate?

Rick

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Rick336

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate?

Rick

I noticed that atheists (at least those who like to debate about it) will often, for arguments sake, accept the hypothesis that God exists most readily when they can bring up the baby head bashing, the evils of Hell, the 180 turn between testaments when He claims to never change, the infighting of denominations, cruelty of predestination, meanness of damning an unbeliever who was never given any convincing evidence...etc. etc. But they just tend to say it's all stupid when speaking of His gifts or love, the responsibility and logical consequence of freewill, the sacrifice of Christ...

They will of course always clarify either way that they are arguing about a fictional character and human made up traits, but it is interesting that on one hand they will take it much further with biblical depictions that make Him look evil, rather than those which paint Him as good... But on the other hand they are very accepting of a more grandfatherly, generous, all forgiving and a tad senile type god... At least that they want to believe in... Who wouldn't?

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by awediot

I noticed that atheists (at least those who like to debate about it) will often, for arguments sake, accept the hypothesis that God exists most readily when they can bring up the baby head bashing, the evils of Hell, the 180 turn between testaments when He claims to never change, the infighting of denominations, cruelty of predestination, meanness of damning an unbeliever who was never given any convincing evidence...etc. etc. But they just tend to say it's all stupid when speaking of His gifts or love, the responsibility and logical consequence of freewill, the sacrifice of Christ...

They will of course always clarify either way that they are arguing about a fictional character and human made up traits, but it is interesting that on one hand they will take it much further with biblical depictions that make Him look evil, rather than those which paint Him as good... But on the other hand they are very accepting of a more grandfatherly, generous, all forgiving and a tad senile type god... At least that they want to believe in... Who wouldn't?

I don't know. I can't speak for all atheists but I think it's fair to say that, like all humans, we don't always get it right.

As for me, I consider myself to be more of a skeptic than just an atheist. I not only can't see any trustworthy evidence for God, but I also can't see any trustworthy evidence for UFOs, crystal healing, alien abductions, palm reading, parapsychology, ghosts, near death experiences, miracles, the Loch Ness Monster, levitation, Holocaust denial, fairies, exorcism, dualism, astrology, channeling, faith healing, star children, crop circles, Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, aura therapy, the existence of Atlantis, magnet therapy, vampires, unicorns, spontaneous combustion, magic, or anything that can't be supported by trustworthy evidence.

But the reason I have such a strong opinion about religion in particular is because I believe it does more harm than good and in the future it could prove to be extremely dangerous.

Rick

[Emproph]

If you listen to the ocean
And the rhythm of the rain
And the rhythm of a heartbeat
And it circles you again

And you do not see the color
And you do not see the reason
And you do not understand these things
You only know religion

And the wisdom of the ages
Meets the wisdom of the moment
And the future past and present
Is the feeling or the touch

And you’re walking like you feel it
In a forest like a wind
And the voices in your ear
Are telling you so much

Some call it allah
Some call it god
Some call it buddha
I call it love

Some call it power
Come from above
Some call him jesus
I call it love

When you're guilty of compassion
It's the border of ever
On the international
Binding us together

When there’s song is all around you
Telling you be free
And the voice has finally found you
And it's everything you need

Some call him allah
Some call him god
Some call him buddha
I call it love

Some call him power
Come from above
Some call Him Jesus
I call it love

Some call it allah
Some call it god
Some call him buddha
I call it love

Some call it power
Up from above
Some call it jesus
I call it love

Some call it power
Up from above
Some call it jesus
I call it love

Some call it allah
Some call it jesus

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Rick336

I don't know. I can't speak for all atheists but I think it's fair to say that, like all humans, we don't always get it right.

And I don't mean to speak about all atheists... I've had more access to atheists and the way they think over the past couple years, than I have my whole life... They are probably my favorite conversationalists, as they have no qualms about bringing up the tough, irreverent questions that most Christians silently collude to ignore for the sake of God's "mysterious ways" and the crutch faith gives us... I like that.

A definite pattern (and actually pretty consistent "belief system" which includes denying it) has emerged from their repeated premises and predictable arguments that though boast of their "free thinking" origins, are just as dogmatic, preachy and faith based as any other "religious" explanations... I've learned a great deal about "them" (at least the sort that enjoys CARM), some things from them, and they've certainly challenged me to sort out why I believe what I do, to a must greater level than I did before...

I do think some of them actually suspect, if not believe a "God" exists, (making them fake atheists) and are in a complex rebellion against Him, but others I believe to be quite sincere seekers who truly long for a God to be real, and give them sufficient evidence to accept Him with an intellectual honesty, rather than wishful thinking and blind faith... Most of them I really like and respect (sadly more than many of the Christians I know there)

As for me, I consider myself to be more of a skeptic than just an atheist. I not only can't see any trustworthy evidence for God, but I also can't see any trustworthy evidence for

I consider an atheist to be someone who simply doesn't believe there is "God" (typically a sentient, independent Creator Being), where as an agnostic will focus on the inherent ignorance. An atheist has formulated a belief and come to a probable conclusion (I think long term agnostics have too, actually)

The contention and room for argument comes with the qualifying, relative contingent that "evidence" must be 'trustworthy' or sufficiently convincing or reliable and in some fashion beyond a reasonable doubt, before an atheist (and arguably a critical thinker, or sharp skeptic) will be swayed... This "dependency" and fluid nature of such adjectives, make "evidence", and thus the truth we will believe from it, relative, and that undermines the argument that we cannot influence what the world has lead us to believe...

Not only do we "make believe", (usually subconsciously), as a matter of routine (and just call it "the benefit of the doubt", "love is blind", optimism...) but we've conspired to pretend we're not denying doing it (even though it can start misguided wars and pass absurd laws which make life needlessly more difficult).

We are quite capable of skewing "evidence" to appear to confirm what we prefer to be true...especially concerning a technically unknowable (God, abiogenesis, alien life, the motives and pure thoughts of others...) as well as just the currently unknown, or unprovable (basically anything we personally do not have empirical experience of). When the evidence is inconclusive, but the "Truth" it is trying to reveal is very important, we are forced to fill in gaps and reason our way to the most likely answer... That undermines our knowledge and challenges our confidence and wisdom to a degree we rarely like to discuss...

Faith, aside from all the religious baggage, is also defined as:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
(the Free dictionary)

firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(MerriamWebster)

It is a psychological, hopefully logical and unbiased "leap" to believing what we do not know for certain... Of course "confident" and "trustworthiness" and "firm" are a matter of opinion as well, but the simple fact that faith is a common, even needed tool we use regularly to move forward in life with when we do not have al the information, tends to drive atheists nuts. 'Faith" has such a religious connotation, a last resort and desperate, anti-science "feel" about it, they will argue to no end that it doesn't play any relevant role in their highly intelligent and fantasy free lives...

The worst thing about "make believe" is that it has made us believe it was a childhood game we've outgrown... It is cranking up right this instant to convince us that is true only about everyone else.

...I also can't see any trustworthy evidence for UFOs, crystal healing, alien abductions, palm reading, parapsychology, ghosts, near death experiences, miracles, the Loch Ness Monster, levitation, Holocaust denial, fairies, exorcism, dualism, astrology, channeling, faith healing, star children, crop circles, Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, aura therapy, the existence of Atlantis, magnet therapy, vampires, unicorns, spontaneous combustion, magic, or anything that can't be supported by trustworthy evidence.

All those things and countless other unknowns, including God, have the fact that they are unknow in common... One thing that begins to sort them out, and at least personally prioritize them, is if we even care about their existence...Usually it is the potential impact such a thing could plausibly have on us directly, which will act as a gauge as to how much we care about it. And in turn, that influences how much we are willing to think, study, swallow or brush-off, and even hope or deny things about where the evidence seems to be leading us.

Some on your interesting, lengthy list are more important and interesting to me than others, but if I had to, I could say I don't hugely care about the existence of any of them, one way or the other...

I'll often ask tthe atheist who resorts to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and "Thursdayism" (where HRG's cat recreates the Universe every Thursday) arguments, if they can say with equal conviction and comfort level that they care about Purple unicorns orbiting Jupiter as much as they care whether a God, a being which created them and isn't done, exists?

It is quite difficult, and almost terminal, to lose any concern, and not even care if God exists... Most atheists will not go that far. The implications are just too great to be apathetic about... (there are exceptions, and they are some of the most tragic, seared people I've ever met) -The concept of God, especially the monotheistic Christian one, singles itself out, and puts even our demand for evidence in it's place via our vulnerable ignorance and common sense, self preserving emotions (another thing most atheists hate)

But the reason I have such a strong opinion about religion in particular is because I believe it does more harm than good and in the future it could prove to be extremely dangerous.

Rick

Strong opinions are rooted in strong beliefs...about the unknown...based on faith.

One could argue your disdain for religion is quite passionate, probably philosophically well thought out, mixed with some evidence and man-handled history that's probably accurate enough... and with that, believing it to be truer than opposing views, you use it as motivation, justification, a source of hope and seed of comfort that more will see it your way one day, and the world will get better... One could say you value that belief and the tentacles of interrelated, systemic acts and calculated reactions, like a religion... ~but "religions" are ideologies revolving around or based on ones beliefs about GOD and the impact the concept has on us and the planet... Yours is more about the probably of there not being a GOD, and the impact conflicting beliefs are having on you...and...the.........planet. -oh, wait,

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

I consider an atheist to be someone who simply doesn't believe there is "God" (typically a sentient, independent Creator Being), where as an agnostic will focus on the inherent ignorance. An atheist has formulated a belief and come to a probable conclusion (I think long term agnostics have too, actually)

By this definition Buddhist's are atheists too, since they reject the concept of an independent deity.

Are their varying systems of belief? Certainly. But to put everything into two camps- those who believe in God and those who do not- strikes me as rather...well....dualistic and simplistic. Everything in black and white. As such, this speaks to the nature of perception, and the mind's incessant need to categorize and label everything it comes into contact with, as if everything can be put into two neat piles. However, nature (and life) seems to defy this reductionism.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Emproph

If you listen to the ocean
And the rhythm of the rain
And the rhythm of a heartbeat
And it circles you again

And you do not see the color
And you do not see the reason
And you do not understand these things
You only know religion

Not a big fan of what "religion" has done to us either...

-but I wonder what Johnette expects us to understand about these things which would signify we're not just indoctrinated sheep... It seems a false dichotomy set up to stab at religion (not a bad thing in and of itself, just, hollow)

And the wisdom of the ages
Meets the wisdom of the moment
And the future past and present
Is the feeling or the touch

And you’re walking like you feel it
In a forest like a wind
And the voices in your ear
Are telling you so much

A nod to the heightened awareness of the being in the hear and now, and plug for the supposed inner wisdom prodding us all on, which eludes being thought of or analyzed (oopsy)

-gotta always smile at mention of the Wisdom of the Ages number crunching the instantaneuosness of it all...

Some call it allah
Some call it god
Some call it buddha
I call it love

Some call it power
Come from above
Some call him jesus
I call it love

When you're guilty of compassion
It's the border of ever
On the international
Binding us together

When there’s song is all around you
Telling you be free
And the voice has finally found you
And it's everything you need

"We are the world...we are the children..."

Wonder who she thinks holds compassion as a crime? ...and free from what do ya think?

Some call him allah
Some call him god
Some call him buddha
I call it love

Some call him power
Come from above
Some call Him Jesus
I call it love

Some call it allah
Some call it god
Some call him buddha
I call it love

Some call it power
Up from above
Some call it jesus
I call it love

Some call it power
Up from above
Some call it jesus
I call it love

Some call it allah
Some call it jesus

Well, allah, "god" (a personal creator being type god anyway), and Jesus are all similarly based on the monotheistic premise that God is a living entity who's "personhood" is reflected in us. Christ and Allah come from the same tradition... But Buddha was an enlightened being. There is no entity of "God" in Buddhism. It is a philosophy, not a "religion" (though it addresses much of the same questions we have, serving as a sort of proxy religion)

-and "love" is far too relativistic as a stand alone concept to be used as a means to not just unify incompatible beliefs, but try to trump them...Of course love is a universal virtue any moral system promotes, and "treat others as you want treated", "cause no harm", and "live and let live" are still Golden rules, but they are skeletal, support structures that we can build some very different cultures on... I find we take the expectation to act on "love" far too much for granted... Unfortunately, defining it and relating our real world, rubber meet road deeds to it, leads us right back into religion and philosophy... Ah well- such is life.

I wrote this to Daniel in the "Are there any Christians here" thread... It seems apropos...

"My solution for awhile was to believe I had discovered the "Spirit" and collective Truth of "Godness" all religions were just expressing in their own, culturally lovely way... All roads lead to Rome like spokes on a wheel... I became not just a Christian, but a Buddhist, a Taoist, Hindu, and Jew who could embrace the inspiration for Odin, Thor, Schrodinger's Cat and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They were all veneers. Everything and nothing was GOD, and realizing that was HimHerIt actualizing, manifesting from amoeba to Me, and you, and them (well not really the fundi type hold outs who kept preaching about falling and depravity and ruin of self-deification)... I hadn't abandon my childhood, dogmatic belief Jesus alone was the only Godman to walk the earth, I had recognized the Christ consciousness in all things and understood He was mostly just a symbol and pointer to our future selves... I was beyond being merely religious and over the boxing in of labels... I was part of God Itself."

>I like Concrete Blonde btw, and don't mean my little nit-picky critique to be taken as picking a fight...just a topical response to add to the flow...

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

By this definition Buddhist's are atheists too, since they reject the concept of an independent deity.

By the usual definition of God as an independent, 'living', sentient, self aware and Creator entity (simply, a Being) that most atheists are addressing, Buddhism is atheistic.

Are their varying systems of belief? Certainly. But to put everything into two camps- those who believe in God and those who do not- strikes me as rather...well....dualistic and simplistic. Everything in black and white. As such, this speaks to the nature of perception, and the mind's incessant need to categorize and label everything it comes into contact with, as if everything can be put into two neat piles. However, nature (and life) seems to defy this reductionism.

No...far from everything. But some things become logically reducible to a yes/no, black/white answer...

Either you believe 'God' is an independent Being (as described above), or you don't... Either "IT" is (as we understand what a conscious entity is), or it isn't (despite our beliefs about it)... Every single person who allows them self to get the gist of the difference and understands the simple question, will be on one side or the other.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by awediot

...

Either you believe 'God' is an independent Being (as described above), or you don't... Either "IT" is (as we understand what a conscious entity is), or it isn't (despite our beliefs about it)... Every single person who allows them self to get the gist of the difference and understands the simple question, will be on one side or the other.

No, not really. One can answer sincerely 'yes' to both sides of the question.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

No, not really. One can answer sincerely 'yes' to both sides of the question.

How in any logically consistent and rational way?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by awediot

How in any logically consistent and rational way?

If it is God, then it is both an independent, conscious entity, and it is simultaneously beyond being merely 'an entity." God nature transcends one localized form. God nature can have form and shape, and it pre-dates form and shape, and it is not limited to one separate and discreet entity.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

If it is God, then it is both an independent, conscious entity, and it is simultaneously beyond being merely 'an entity." God nature transcends one localized form. God nature can have form and shape, and it pre-dates form and shape, and it is not limited to one separate and discreet entity.

But it either knows itself to be God or it doesn't. It either is a conscious Being (and them some), or it is not.

logic dictates -A- cannot be both -A- and not _a_ simultaneously (square circle, self refuting impossibility syndrome)... God being more than we can fathom doesn't mean "IT" is completely incomprehensible and becomes any/everything we can think up. When we abstract It beyond any meaning, or disallow It to be as sentient and aware as we are, then WE take it's place by default.

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

If the workings of God were totally clear and easily understood, God would be pretty small indeed.

Originally Posted by Rick336

I don't understand what you mean here.

Rick, sorry about being unclear. What I mean is that God is so much beyond our comprehension and so much above us that we are uncapable of understanding him/her.

For illustration: A person living in a five dimensional universe could not be understood by those of us living in the 3+1 dimensions of our universe. We are incapable of visualizing that extra dimension. That person could give us illustrations and descriptions of her universe, but they would be very imperfectly understood by us. If we fully understood our 5 dimensional friend, she couldn't be 5 dimensional.

God is unable to be understood by the human mind.

And I am most willing to listen to your beliefs. If fact I generally get along much better with atheists than I do with fundamentalist Christians. (Atheists are so much more reasonable and understanding I find.)

As a gay Christian I have heard so many people pull out a few Bible verses to use them weapons against gay people. They use an isolated verse out of its context as, in their minds, solid proof that all gays are evil and sinful. Very much damage has been done by Christians who use the pick-and-choose method of understanding the Bible. The Bible is understood in its wholeness using the principles of the Bible as a basis for the faith not cherry-picked verses.

I think that I why I am bothered by how you have used selected Bible verses. Maybe as a gay Christian I am overly sensitive, but we have had this weapon used against us many times. I am probably not the only one who is touchy about it. When someone starts throwing out Bible verses to "prove" their opinons, I have a tendency to get defensive.

I hope you take no offense. I appreciate what you have to say and admire your dedication and enthusiasm in working for gay rights.

Pablo