Religions

[Chris]

Then how about you try trusting in God?
Give Him complete control of your life for awhile, and see what happens.

You don't choose what you believe. You can choose what you read, with whom you talk, and other actions, but you can't choose to believe something you don't believe. You can't "trust God" unless you already believe that God exists.

[Sunni Daez]

Believing is a matter of perspective. You do choose what you believe.. or what you believe in, just as you choose what you don't believe in. One day, something may happen that sways that choice the other direction.

Believing in God is a choice you make, not one that is just, there.. same as not believing.

Some minds have a hard time believing what cannot be seen or touched, others are open to believe anything ...

The mind is amazing.. they say you only use 10% of your brain.. I believe we use even less of our mind!

[Andu]

Believing is a matter of perspective. You do choose what you believe.. or what you believe in, just as you choose what you don't believe in. One day, something may happen that sways that choice the other direction.

Believing in God is a choice you make, not one that is just, there.. same as not believing.

Some minds have a hard time believing what cannot be seen or touched, others are open to believe anything ...

True, it is a matter of perspective, and about how open ones mind is... I used to belive that the Force where real. Tarot, ESP, ghosts also... and I just choosed to belive in it. Aah, those times...

The mind is amazing.. they say you only use 10% of your brain.. I believe we use even less of our mind!

I call that busted. This is yet one of the things regarded as "true" because it is repeated over and over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

[Chris]

For one day, choose to believe that you are a bird, and then report back to us afterward. Or choose to believe that your mother is George Washington's purple poodle. Go to an insane asylum and you'll find people who believe in all kinds of nonsensical things, but you can't choose to believe those things.

[Snickie]

So, what you're implying by this post is that the beliefs Christians hold are nonsensical, and all Christians should be locked up in an insane asylum? Because you basically just compared Christianity to insanity in your last post, given the context.


Oh whatever. Insanity ftw!! Jesus is awesome, and I'm not afraid to admit it! Lock me up for it. I don't care.

[RedQueen.exe]

I am so confused... what has happened here? lol. I was hoping we'd stay on the witnesses thing, because it's not something I know a tremendous deal about. I know books have been written making the case that jesus never existed at all, so I was hoping someone who's read more would have some input.

Then how about you try trusting in God?
Give Him complete control of your life for awhile, and see what happens.

I did up until about age 24-ish or so. I was actually moderately devout, at least moreso than most of the kids my age in that parish. I'd been confirmed, was part of the youth group, helped with the church fundraisers and other functions, etc.

I had always hated going to mass though, even when I was involved in the church in other ways. I felt that the true "meat" of faith/service was about works and volunteering. I never felt like I got much out of mass, I could read the bible in my own time, and I felt I had a pretty good handle on what it meant to be a good person.

I do think I understand what Chris means though, that you can't just "decide" to believe something. It does remind me a little bit of an Ingersoll quote (though one I don't think is entirely true - just look at how successfully african americans were forcibly coerced into christianity during slavery. The first couple generations may have done so hypocritically, but their ancestors have clearly believed it honestly)

You cannot change the conclusion of the brain by torture; nor by social ostracism. But I will tell you what you can do by these, and what you have done. You can make hypocrites by the million. You can make a man say that he has changed his mind; but he remains of the same opinion still. Put fetters all over him; crush his feet in iron boots; stretch him to the last gasp upon the holy rack; burn him, if you please, but his ashes will be of the same opinion still.

[Rebma]

Actually I've heard it said that during the time Jesus supposedly lived, did all this miraculous stuff like water to wine, etc, was resurrected, there was -zero- literature about him. Anywhere. No one wrote about him, or any of the stuff he did, his name was never anywhere. I mean, you'd expect it to show up -somewhere-.

There was -one- document like that, that had been found. But carbon dating actually proved it to be a falsification.

It's not that I don't believe in things I can't see or touch. Because I've like, never touched jupiter or seen it with my own eyes, but it's there. It's more that I can't believe in something that can't be proven 100%. If you can't prove to me 100% he's there, or not there, then I can't believe either way. I enjoy hearing the sides though.

[Chris]

So, what you're implying by this post is that the beliefs Christians hold are nonsensical, and all Christians should be locked up in an insane asylum? Because you basically just compared Christianity to insanity in your last post, given the context.


Oh whatever. Insanity ftw!! Jesus is awesome, and I'm not afraid to admit it! Lock me up for it. I don't care.

No. The point was that you can't believe those things, no matter how hard you try. I picked extreme examples to get my point across. If you can choose what you believe, then try it with something extremely different from what you believe now (though not something dangerous or that is likely to get you in trouble).

[gejyspa]

(like Chris's example came from how Christians believe their savior died on a cross for everyone's sin (a concept only found in Christianity, from what I've studied))..

You need to study more. The Hindoo Sakia, Hesus of the Celtic Droids, Chrishna.... Actually there are many more occurances that pre-date christianity that have a god dying via crucifixion for the world's sins.

Exactly. This is why some atheists are fond of the saying that "teaching one religion indoctrinates, teaching many religions inoculates". When you see how much the various religions borrow ideas from each other and offshoot from each other, you realize --- this is exactly what you would expect of an idea that is an entirely man-made, cultural phenomenon.

Or perhaps, to express the dea that both Islam and Bahá'í express, it's not because religions "borrow ideas" from other religions, but more simply -- because the stuff is actually true, but the other religions have simply gotten it wrong in some respect. That is, they have corrupted, misinterpreted, or otherwise not understood aspects of what happened. So, not borrowig, but common experience.

[gejyspa]

Maybe it sounds like I have a beef with religion --- well, I do. My brother was an atheist far before I became one. My father made him go through the entire process leading up to (Catholic) confirmation before letting him decide whether or not to go through with it. My parents hoped that it was some rebellious phase that he would just eventually grow out of. My brother, of course, did all of the preparation for confirmation as he was asked to before telling my father that he still would not go through with it.

My father tore himself apart agonizing over my brother's decision, feeling that he had failed his son. And why wouldn't he if he believes his own son will be denied heaven because he couldn't "convince" him? As far as I'm aware, no other difference of opinion burdens people with the thought that their family and loved ones will be tormented by an eternal sky-bully if they can't manage to make them believe the same as they do.

When I finally came around myself years later, I saw how it can create these needless distances between people in families. I still haven't told my family about my own "conversion", and luckily they haven't asked. I don't feel the need to depress my father even further over something so - inconsequential. I do as my brother does and quietly bow my head during mealtime prayers, but utter nothing. I'm not mad at the people who believe with good intent (I think most religious fall into this category) but I am upset with this useless idea that creates these kinds of rifts within families for no good reason.

But xtianity is expected to divisive: --

"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (Matt. 10:37)

"They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:53)

Compare this to the Hebrew Bible:
"He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse." (Malachi 4:6)

[gejyspa]

I'm not a big fan of Catholics; they apparently have a ton of customs and whatnot that don't exist in the Bible. I mean, where does it say anything about Popes and bishops and cardinals in the Bible? Then again, I haven't done much research on the topic, so I could be wrong.

Check out 1Timothy chapter 3. For example, 1 Tim 3:2. Now, I'm not sure whatever translation you use has it, but in the Greek, "δει ουν τον επισκοπον ανεπιληπτον ειναι μιας γυναικος ανδρα νηφαλιον σωφρονα κοσμιον φιλοξενον διδακτικον" (KJV has: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" whereas the NASB says, "an overseer...." but regardless, επισκοπον (episkopon) in greek means "bishop" it's directly from where the word comes from in English. And the idea of a heirarchical structure is clearly seen in this chapter. (celibacy was an added layer that came later due to very realpolitik reasons of not wanting dynastic religious leadership such as did happen with the Borgias, Medicis, etc. ) The idea of a Pope was simply an outgrowth of the idea of emulating J as the head of the Church, and traces its legitimacy to Simon Peter, wh they regard as the first pope. (Matt. 16:18) Traditionally, the bishop of Rome was styled as the premer bishop, called Pope (father) when the seat of the Church moved there. Of course, the great schism, the reformation, antipopes, and so forth have challenged that primacy, but that's where it comes from.


(edit to removing dangling sentence fragment)

[gejyspa]

Christianity is large and diverse. This urge to define some set as "real Christians" and the rest as heretics (or unsaved or whatever term the true believer uses) harms both the religion itself and political life. But people like Santorum just can't help themselves. It's part of a long losing battle against modernity.

I am going to enjoy watch them finally give up their fight against the gays as it becomes as socially distasteful as it should be, in order to keep the religion palatable in the face of evolving morality. Then, you'll watch them suddenly discover new interpretations of the bible in order to make it fit their new stance. THEN, you'll watch them try to ignore how much the religion held progress back, and when pushed, pretend that it was just a bunch of fringe, kooky people interpreting the bible the wrong way - much as has been done after the abolition of slavery and the downfall of laws and bigotry preventing interracial marriage.

Kind of hard to take the idea that religion is required in order to have objective morality when people keep disagreeing and changing their minds about what it does and doesn't endorse, lol.

No question that things do evolve. Even in Orthodox Judaism, albeit slowly. That's why minority opinions were recorded in the Talmud. So that as societies change, there are opinions that current rabbinic authority can hang their hat on to, so to speak. But even way back then, the rabbis found hermeneutical ways to interpret the written law to accord with their sensibilities (for example, they understood that "eye for an eye" was never to be taken literally, but only referred to monetary compensation, since you could never possibly exactly do the same amount of damage to the assailant as to his victim. For a simple example, if a one-eyed person blinds the eye of someone else, should his remaining eye be blinded? That would render the damage done to him far greater than what he exacted of the original victim)

[gejyspa]

http://forum.cantr.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8766

I think that another reason we don't see either side of Islam argued is because there aren't really anymore active players on the forum who are Muslims whopost here. If a Muslim were to come on and post all the reasons why their religion is correct or whetever it is they decide to argue, I'm sure we'd jump all over them just like we're jumping all over each other now.

On that note, I give Islam as much credit as I do Mormonism. The dude claimed to have received visions when he was alone in a cave. That alone should tell you something's up. Christianity has witnesses. At least 500 people saw Jesus after he had clearly been dead. One of the biggest issues with disbelief is because of the Roman soldiers who had guarded the tomb and witnessed the angel rolling the stone away; they were later paid, in silver I believe, to go around saying the disciples had stolen the body. I'm pretty sure it was by the Pharisees, too, because enough of them had a problem with Jesus.

Matthew 28:17 και ιδοντες αυτον προσεκυνησαν αυτω οι δε εδιστασαν
Usually translated as "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Unfortunately, the word "some" is interpolated. It does not appear in the Greek. It says, "but they doubted". So, we have to ask --doubt what? So despite the fact that he appeared before the 500, even the eyewitnesses weren't convinced...

[gejyspa]

Actually I've heard it said that during the time Jesus supposedly lived, did all this miraculous stuff like water to wine, etc, was resurrected, there was -zero- literature about him. Anywhere. No one wrote about him, or any of the stuff he did, his name was never anywhere. I mean, you'd expect it to show up -somewhere-.

There was -one- document like that, that had been found. But carbon dating actually proved it to be a falsification.

It's not that I don't believe in things I can't see or touch. Because I've like, never touched jupiter or seen it with my own eyes, but it's there. It's more that I can't believe in something that can't be proven 100%. If you can't prove to me 100% he's there, or not there, then I can't believe either way. I enjoy hearing the sides though.

Perhaps strictly speaking, true, but Josephus Flavius (a Jewish historian, who was born less than a decade after the crucifixioin) did write about him, although not extensively. (much detail can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus ) Also, there are passages in the Talmud (again, pretty contemporary) that some consider might be about him (although they are hardly comlimentary, as can be imagined).

[Henkie]

I have never in my life seen a sextuple post! Lol! Go Gejyspa!