Religion: What it means to you

I think I'd vote for the guy who doesn't use his religion to attract voters.

If you're out flaunting your faith, you're anything but humble. Just another one of the hypocrisies that has led me to abandon faith/belief in any religion in particular.

I think my personal moral code resembles more closely that of Hinduism/Buddhism. Maybe even Utilitarianism, as I sort of have a hedonistic calculus approach to decision making. I also believe that our actions do have a karmaic effect on the world. Not relying too heavily on newtonian physics but every action would seem to have an equal reaction. Therefore, I strive to act in a manner that minimizes the suffering of others. I say minimize, because we can never eliminate that effect, in order for me to live, something or someone else must die or sacrifice.

In short, I have morals, driven by my own reason and empathy as a human. I do not believe strongly in the existence of a supreme being, but that is not to say I strongly believe that there is no such thing.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Careful. It's easy to be mislead in that way. Suppose that there was a presidential candidate who claimed to be a devout Christian, but was nothing of the sort in truth. You might never find out.

You'd vote for him, right? Especially if the other candidate was a godless heathen.

If the heathen is full of anti god statements the person wouldnt get my vote.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Question: If you could, would you vote Bush next election?

Yes if I have no other choice.
My religion serves a compass that points me in a direction. Ultimately my goal isn't to get the right person to lead the country. My goal is to get everyone I know to follow Jesus Christ so that they wont be disappointed with leaders that can't meet their every need. Every leader that I vote for who points to God in one form or another is doing the work I put them there to do.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Unfortunately, Bush is a poor representative of the Christian body now, and as such would be considered an ineffective "witness," if one would even dare use that term to describe him.
The saying "Actions speak louder than words" is not without merit.

Would you rather have an openly atheistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent, or an openly theistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

If the heathen is full of anti god statements the person wouldnt get my vote.

That's hardly a fair answer. You see, it's unlikely that any candidate for the presidency of the United States of America would ever have even a single serious "anti-god statement" on the public record, because he represents all Americans, and there are a substantial number of Christians in the American voting public. For the same reason, I question if it is appropriate for a presidential candidate to criticise Islam. Of course such criticism would not have the same devastating effect at the ballot as criticisms aimed at Christianity, but that wouldn't make it appropriate. The President represents American moslems as well as American Christians, which is why I feel that the faith of a candidate is immaterial.

The question is not whether you would support a candidate who actually criticised your faith, but whether you would favour a Christian candidate over a non-Christian, regardless of who is better for the country. Even a non-Christian can protect Christian rights, and he would be bound to do so by the constitution. I would also like to say that I agree entirely with PackRat's post above. We are reading from the same page here.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

I think I'd vote for the guy who doesn't use his religion to attract voters.

That's exactly the attitude I think is best. Being Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or even atheist is basically irrelevant to a candidate's suitability for office. His stated policies are what matter.

FELIPE NO

I find myself often swayed to agnostic deism.

It is not that I cannot decide if I believe, as I do believe in a driving universal force in our existence. The name of that force, the sex of that force, and the intentions of that force are outside my realm of knowledge, however. I cannot conceive of all knowledge, how can I conceive of a being with all knowledge?

I believe it is nearly impossible to ever know if a religion or belief is true. I would even venture to say that it is wholly impossible as most religions dictate that a supreme being is omnipresent, omnipotent, omnipotent, transcendent, and benevolent. It is a being that is, through definition, outside our realm of understanding, and so I prescribe to the process of thought that it stays outside of our realm of understanding.

I believe there is a force, though I cannot begin to tell you the qualities of that force -- it is, as I said, outside my ability to conceive.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by packrat

Would you rather have an openly atheistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent, or an openly theistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent?

I would stick with the theistic person. At least that individual could be held accountable to their belief system which is accessible to anyone who wants to point out errors in conduct. Saying that Bush is a poor christian representative at least makes written religious doctrine look good. The atheistic person however is only held accountable to what is lawful by the state and saying that that person is "bad" is purely a judgment call without some reference other than opinion.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

That's hardly a fair answer. You see, it's unlikely that any candidate for the presidency of the United States of America would ever have even a single serious "anti-god statement" on the public record, because he represents all Americans,

Good point. Like I said before, the leader I want is there to help me bring others to Christ. By calling people to pray (during hard times & National day of prayer) Bush has at least kept this door open for me with this kind of appeal to the public.

Originally Posted by Cain

I believe it is nearly impossible to ever know if a religion or belief is true.

Part of the reason why I gravitated to Jesus Christ is because of this statement:
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

Other faiths are not as clear when it comes to following their systems. I want to aim at a specific mark when it comes to working out my eternal situation. I hate guessing and in the spiritual realm there is allot of guess work.
The reason why the spiritual is foremost on my mind is because I have seen plenty of death and suffering by volunteering in service to the homeless and visiting nursing homes on my job. Its ugly out there and my belief in heaven is sometimes the only thing between peace of mind and depression.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I
Part of the reason why I gravitated to Jesus Christ is because of this statement:
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
[...]
Its ugly out there and my belief in heaven is sometimes the only thing between peace of mind and depression.

Well, from an anthropological point of view, that is the entire point of religious systems. They give conformity, uniformity, and belongingness. They give a common deity of which multiple people can band together on and, ultimately, become a stronger culture.

The psychological effects of religion are numerous. For example, it is a known fact that going to church causes a chemical reaction that lifts the mood. Prayer, in studies, is generally useless practically but it does elevate the moods of the praying.

It promotes social connections as well. Religion and religious observation does have positive psychological and social effects. That is not to say, of course, that these effects are completely dependent on the existence of religion. You can have all of these things through other actions as well as through devoutness.

Ultimately, like I said, I cannot find irrefutable proof that something does or does not exist. I think Anselm used the term "Greatest Conceivable Being" to push the ontological argument; but I believe that being has well surpassed the concept of conceivable. It's something too great for me to conceive of, but I can only hope that it exists.

I have no proof, nor argument; simply a hope.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by packrat

Would you rather have an openly atheistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent, or an openly theistic person in office who is corrupted and incompetent?

This is a fundamentally flawed question to pose. Not a single intelligent person would prefer to have an incompetent and corrupted politician in power regardless of what their belief about the cosmos may be.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I would stick with the theistic person. At least that individual could be held accountable to their belief system which is accessible to anyone who wants to point out errors in conduct...

It's astonishing that so many people associate atheism with immorality and devil worshiping. If even 10% of Americans were atheists and thereby on the lunatic fringe, we should be seeing murder and rape, excuse the pun, on a biblical scale.

How could anyone possibly think we get our morals from scripture? If the bible is the perfect guide to morality we should be stoning homosexuals. We should be stoning people for thought crimes. We should be keeping slaves. The bible clearly illustrates this to be man's moral imperative. Oddly, 6 of the 10 Commandments have nothing to do morality. 3 are honesty Commandments and the final one, murder, is just there for what could only be amusement considering the level of murder, violence, bigotry, and hatred we see around the globe.

Any decent, civilized, rational human being will be able to come to a conclusion that stealing, and murder, and cheating are wrong without the aid of a magical book.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

The reason why the spiritual is foremost on my mind is because I have seen plenty of death and suffering by volunteering in service to the homeless and visiting nursing homes on my job. Its ugly out there and my belief in heaven is sometimes the only thing between peace of mind and depression.

You fit the bill perfectly when Daniel Dennett says many so-called religious people don't actually believe in God. But instead believe in belief. Your belief that there is a second life after your natural life on Earth no doubt comforts you greatly. The idea removes the uncertainty of death and what will become of you. But at no stage in believing in the afterlife does it ever become true, simply because you believe it to be.
[Insert Sam Harris' example of believing you have a diamond the size of a refridgerator burried in your back yard]

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Any decent, civilized, rational human being will be able to come to a conclusion that stealing, and murder, and cheating are wrong without the aid of a magical book.

This is true. I just pointed out that when a person says they follow the book anyone can correct that individual and help them stay on the path they said they are on. This is harder to do with a "grey area" oriented person. Without a written standard excuses can be made for anything.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

You fit the bill perfectly when Daniel Dennett says many so-called religious people don't actually believe in God. But instead believe in belief. Your belief that there is a second life after your natural life on Earth no doubt comforts you greatly. The idea removes the uncertainty of death and what will become of you. But at no stage in believing in the afterlife does it ever become true, simply because you believe it to be.

Dennett is incorrect. My belief that there is a heaven is built upon my knowledge of God which comes form a Bible. I have dealt with suffering people and tough circumstances and witnessed miracles in answered prayer and fortitude in people that are in constant pain. When you get under the hood and see the engine of faith at work it makes you a believer that its founded on something real. This is the reason why I pointed to my personal heros in Martin Luther King Jr. & Mother Teresa. They were around for a long time and experienced too much to just right off as so much wishful thinking.

Get ready for such an experience. Remember a Christian is praying for you.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

This is a fundamentally flawed question to pose. Not a single intelligent person would prefer to have an incompetent and corrupted politician in power regardless of what their belief about the cosmos may be.

Setting aside the now vocal opinion that the question I posed is, in one sense, what every American goes through every election year("lesser of two evils" votes), the purpose of my question is to gauge whether LordSword really feels that he would rather have "Christian" leadership, regardless of their adherence to the belief system which they proclaim(or lack therof), leading to what is essentially misrepresentation and defamation of this belief system or group.
Obviously, his response to said inquiry demonstrated that he has little, if any, understanding of this concept; or just isn't giving it the consideration that it deserves. The question is not flawed because it was intended to test how much he cared for the concept of public opinion, aiding me in deciding whether I should pursue any further discussion on the topic.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

This is true. I just pointed out that when a person says they follow the book anyone can correct that individual and help them stay on the path they said they are on. This is harder to do with a "grey area" oriented person. Without a written standard excuses can be made for anything.

Isn't the Bible pretty much full of contradictory commandments? If they were found to have mounds of dead hookers in their basement they could simply claim that they were witches and as such he was scripturally justified in their murders.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Dennett is incorrect. My belief that there is a heaven is built upon my knowledge of God which comes form a Bible. I have dealt with suffering people and tough circumstances and witnessed miracles in answered prayer and fortitude in people that are in constant pain.

Pretty much all religions make these claims; what makes your so special? I know that in my life amazingly lucky things have happened to me, but I never felt a need to put it down to anything but dumb luck.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

When you get under the hood and see the engine of faith at work it makes you a believer that its founded on something real. This is the reason why I pointed to my personal heros in Martin Luther King Jr. & Mother Teresa. They were around for a long time and experienced too much to just right off as so much wishful thinking.

Get ready for such an experience. Remember a Christian is praying for you.

There have been many incredible Atheists who have made amazing contributions to mankind even though they had no faith in some greater being.

Some noted Atheists include - Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Benjamin Franklin and Sigmund Freud to name but a few.

Just because someone has a belief in something and then does good work, that does not mean that what they believe in is real.

Remember an Atheist is thinking for you.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by packrat

Setting aside the now vocal opinion that the question I posed is, in one sense, what every American goes through every election year("lesser of two evils" votes), the purpose of my question is to gauge whether LordSword really feels that he would rather have "Christian" leadership, regardless of their adherence to the belief system which they proclaim(or lack therof), leading to what is essentially misrepresentation and defamation of this belief system or group.
Obviously, his response to said inquiry demonstrated that he has little, if any, understanding of this concept; or just isn't giving it the consideration that it deserves. The question is not flawed because it was intended to test how much he cared for the concept of public opinion, aiding me in deciding whether I should pursue any further discussion on the topic.

I would stick with the theist. Honestly your question made me think about this issue for a while, church types don't get taught much about the role of politics and forwarding the faith. In the past I just aimed at the character of humility in leadership defined by some indication of faith in God. I have more faith in that because I have seen it work in myself.

The past few years with Bush has made me grow and change a bit because I did help put him in office and have been disappointed to a degree but I chose to maximize what he has done for my personal benefit and in dialogue with others in various arenas. That man with his faults has opened up much in discussion on the Christian faith and I think that is great for witnessing & exposing people to their own issues and their need for a savior. Sure I will take a Christian who messes up. I can build on that.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LordsSword

That man with his faults has opened up much in discussion on the Christian faith and I think that is great for witnessing & exposing people to their own issues and their need for a savior.

Yes, that's exactly what we need. More people depending on imaginary saviors instead of relying on their own self worth in the world. Trading heroine for God is simply replacing the addiction for an imaginary savior for another one that's less fatal.

I finally saw "Borat." During the course of the movie he goes to a Christian revival in Texas and plays the part of one who wants to convert. People are running around, shouting out God, talking in tongues, etc etc. This was also a mainstream church in Texas; the Chief Justice of the State and a Senator showed up for speeches. Borat proceeded to shout in tongues with the minister, all blabbing together in a group in the voice of the Holy Spirit. It was really quite striking.

The difference is that Borat knew he wasn't really speaking the voice of the Holy Spirit. The difference was that he wasn't temporarily insane. Speak to me of the wisdom of Christianity LordsSword, and I'll speak to you of it's madness.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Cain

Well, from an anthropological point of view, that is the entire point of religious systems. They give conformity, uniformity, and belongingness. They give a common deity of which multiple people can band together on and, ultimately, become a stronger culture.

If by anthropological you mean anthropology circa 1930's when we were studying the 'noble savage.' Actually, religion's meaning changes based on what culture you're looking at. But, nice swing and a miss there.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

If by anthropological you mean anthropology circa 1930's when we were studying the 'noble savage.' Actually, religion's meaning changes based on what culture you're looking at. But, nice swing and a miss there.

You are right. The meaning does, indeed, change. That is not what I meant, however. The meanings do change, but the affect stays the same. Universally, belief of any sort will foster an inclusive environment.

I'll again say, just to be fair, these things are also found ELSEWHERE. A common language also has these affects. Marriage does as well.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Cain

You are right. The meaning does, indeed, change. That is not what I meant, however. The meanings do change, but the affect stays the same. Universally, belief of any sort will foster an inclusive environment.

I'll again say, just to be fair, these things are also found ELSEWHERE. A common language also has these affects. Marriage does as well.

Except that this isn't what religion does on a universal level. There are areas of world, most markedly the Columbian jungle and the People of the Center, for whom religion is a terrifying and anomie causing aspect of life. Western religion does what you say it does. Not all religion. Don't bring anthropology into it when you aren't up on your theory.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Isn't the Bible pretty much full of contradictory commandments?

Sorry it took so long to get to this question. No there are no contradictions in the Bible. I have seen a list made that presents contradiction but after careful study of the book as a whole the issues are cleared up. The true issue is that there is a conflict between human philosophy and biblical texts.

Atheism on the other hand has a blatant contradiction when corresponding with reality. Darwin's evolutionary theory, which is at the root of atheism has no basis for moral decision yet even an atheist says they have an inherent capacity & a drive for having a moral compass. If evolution is a law of nature, lying, stealing & murder is in the long run a benefit so long as the person who is good at it benefits and their progeny benefit from it.
On this basis alone the atheist cannot say that defying "moral" statutes is bad or wrong yet they do. Why?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Pretty much all religions make these claims; what makes your so special? I know that in my life amazingly lucky things have happened to me, but I never felt a need to put it down to anything but dumb luck.

I have centuries of evidence that answered prayer has been proven. If prayers didn't get answered once in a while there is little else to keep a believer going. My first proof is the existence of the Jewish people. Archeologists know that they were a small civilization hard pressed on all sides and even overwhelmed by other civilizations but their culture still survives today. Only answered prayer could account for Jewish persistence over thousands of years.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

There have been many incredible Atheists who have made amazing contributions to mankind even though they had no faith in some greater being.

Some noted Atheists include - Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Benjamin Franklin and Sigmund Freud to name but a few.

Just because someone has a belief in something and then does good work, that does not mean that what they believe in is real.

You listed creative and inventive people. By their nature they believed in things that didn't not exist for others in their time but for them, their imagined concepts were real to them. Eventually their ideas took hold in society just like those of the people I mentioned. What makes our examples the same is that all of the people listed believed in something beyond themselves and that is what changed the world. What you should recognize is that the Christian example is just as successful despite the belief that their methods (such as prayer) are not a respected tool for effecting results.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Yes, that's exactly what we need. More people depending on imaginary saviors instead of relying on their own self worth in the world.

When you say self worth by what means are you referring to? Do you mean by utilitarianism? I volunteer to serve those who could not benefit from this model of determining self worth. The elderly, the sick & infirm people of the world are so much garbage from the utilitarian view. I have seen the results first hand.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

I finally saw "Borat." During the course of the movie he goes to a......
The difference is that Borat knew he wasn't really speaking the voice of the Holy Spirit. The difference was that he wasn't temporarily insane. Speak to me of the wisdom of Christianity LordsSword, and I'll speak to you of it's madness.

There are belief systems for many things. Before you jump to conclusions about any given system please evaluate it first. There are many different groups who call themselves "Christian" but are not, they just take the title like so many people do for brand association. The one you saw is a cult that stresses non-biblical practices as its centerpiece for showing that a person is bound for heaven.

My religion is my source for purpose in life. Growing up with atheists for parents I saw that they had no purpose other than getting high on drugs, abusing themselves & mistreating others. Eventually as the old saying goes "the apple doesn't fall from the tree" and I did much of the same things they did. I thought I would be "better" than them and choose my paths more "wisely" than they. After many events that finally led to my dependance of alcohol and drugs did I finally realize that I can't do it alone. My religion requires me to be honest with myself. I truly had no basis for knowing what is "better" for my parents and I under the context that death is the final end to my existence. My faith in the reward for having faith in the work of Jesus Christ has become a joy filled life that is confirmed by Biblical texts.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Atheism on the other hand has a blatant contradiction when corresponding with reality. Darwin's evolutionary theory, which is at the root of atheism has no basis for moral decision yet even an atheist says they have an inherent capacity & a drive for having a moral compass. If evolution is a law of nature, lying, stealing & murder is in the long run a benefit so long as the person who is good at it benefits and their progeny benefit from it. On this basis alone the atheist cannot say that defying "moral" statutes is bad or wrong yet they do. Why?

You are misunderstanding Darwin's theory of evolution. Natural Selection occurs at the level of the gene not the individual. So far as we know there are no genes for lying and cheating and stealing. It may very well be that certain individuals benefit themselves by lying and cheating and stealing (President Bush has made a successful career out of these) but this is now entering the realm of Game Theory. Darwinism says nothing about how individuals ought to behave. That much we can all agree on.

It's really not difficult to understand how an atheist can have a moral basis once you understand how morality does not and cannot originate from the Bible.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I have centuries of evidence that answered prayer has been proven.

Prayers have a tremendous psychological impact when the thing being prayed for becomes true. But this amounts to no evidence at all that prayers can influence an outcome. Many double blind studies indeed support this idea. And to add insult prayers often have negative effects.

Imagine I'm a doctor and I tell you, you have terminal cancer with 3 months to live. These are mere words but if you believe them there would be dramatic change in your physiology. Immediately you pray to your God to help you through this ordeal. 3 months later you return to me and I tell you your cancer has inexplicably gone away. You would be convinced God intervened. Unfortunately you never learn of the fact that I happen to be a nasty doctor and I just enjoy causing anguish and suffering in people. What you'll never know is that I lied to you. You never did have terminal cancer. Yet happy you will be with the false belief that God saved you.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

My religion is my source for purpose in life.

Life is not something to be endured. If you can't find purpose in life then that's your problem. At no stage in merely believing you have a diamond the size of a refridgerator burried your back yard because of the comfort and joy it brings you does it ever become true. Creation and the ressurection and the virgin birth aren't made true simply because of the comfort religion brings to your life.

This whole idea that religion is needed in order for an individual to have a meaningful life is rather presumptuous. Where is it suggested that if one individual has no purpose in life without religion that suddenly all individuals without religion must also have no purpose? Furthermore, those without religion not only have no meaning and purpose but also live an immoral life.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Sorry it took so long to get to this question. No there are no contradictions in the Bible.

So if I encountered a witch should I let her live (Exodus 20:13) or kill her (Exodus 22:18)?

Quote:

Darwin's evolutionary theory, which is at the root of atheism

I would say that people like Paul-Henri Thiry were at the root of atheism far more than Darwin.

"If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve its own interests."

He managed to come up with all that before Darwin was even born.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with Atheism whatsoever. It is possible to be an atheist and not believe in evolution, or to be a theist and believe in evolution.

Quote:

If evolution is a law of nature, lying, stealing & murder is in the long run a benefit so long as the person who is good at it benefits and their progeny benefit from it.

From talkorigins.opg

1. Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.

2. Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

3. Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.

4. Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

5. Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.

6. Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.

7. Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

And also from our old friend Thiry

"It would be useless and almost unjust to insist upon a man's being virtuous if he cannot be so without being unhappy. So long as vice renders him happy, he should love vice."

Quote:

I have centuries of evidence that answered prayer has been proven.

And it couldn't possible be coincidence.

Quote:

Only answered prayer could account for Jewish persistence over thousands of years.

What about the Native Americans, the Basques and Aborigines? All these people have been discriminated against and persecuted, yet none of them were Christian and managed to survive as long as us Jews.

Quote:

What you should recognize is that the Christian example is just as successful despite the belief that their methods (such as prayer) are not a respected tool for effecting results.

Dr. King and other Christians didn't just pray, they actually went and actively tried to change things. Maybe if they had just sat in a room and changed the world through prayer there might be some truth to this claim, but they could have achieved similar results without prayer, just as atheists have.

[quote]Growing up with atheists for parents I saw that they had no purpose other than getting high on drugs, abusing themselves & mistreating others.[quote]

You're entire basis for 'Atheists are evil' seems to be two people, which is hardly representatvie

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

No there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Wow, somehow I feel you aren't qualified to make that statement.

I think the Christian concept of "God" in and of itself is a contradiction. And, also, I have to call into question the "logic" of anyone who uses the metaphysical to guide their physical existence, as if it were law.

Quote:

Growing up with atheists for parents I saw that they had no purpose other than getting high on drugs, abusing themselves & mistreating others.

Growing up within a Christian family, I found that sin and vice were still common place within the church, that people used religion as if it were some exclusive club that I had to join, once I was in I was subjected to their weakmindedness, bigotry, backstabbing, constant condescension and general lack of understanding.

Atheists probably spend so much time getting high because they get tired of consciously tuning out the white-noise of religious banter.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

You are misunderstanding Darwin's theory of evolution. Natural Selection occurs at the level of the gene not the individual.

But the individual is the total potential of genes. When you make any choice it does have evolutionary reprucutions under Darwin's model. What you eat how you behave what you choose as a mate, these are choices just like the ones that people with that ability have to ensure their current success & progressing bloodline.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

It's really not difficult to understand how an atheist can have a moral basis once you understand how morality does not and cannot originate from the Bible.

True, even the Bible admits that a persons conscience is an integral part of the human creation that showed the way to God before the commandments were given. Hence the reason why my previous lifestyle bothered me so much.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Imagine I'm a doctor and I tell you, you have terminal cancer with 3 months to live. These are mere words but if you believe them there would be dramatic change in your physiology. Immediately you pray to your God to help you through this ordeal. 3 months later you return to me and I tell you your cancer has inexplicably gone away. You would be convinced God intervened.

Its funny you brought this up. Someone I know has a parent who had this very same experience and that person is truely cured.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

This whole idea that religion is needed in order for an individual to have a meaningful life is rather presumptuous. Where is it suggested that if one individual has no purpose in life without religion that suddenly all individuals without religion must also have no purpose?

A study of the book of Ecclesiastes in a Bible answered this question for me. Be honest, should death could take us at any time what purpose is there in anything other than the pursuit of pleasure? If atheism can answer this question I wouldn't chase after God.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

So if I encountered a witch should I let her live (Exodus 20:13) or kill her (Exodus 22:18)?

I am sorely tempted but I wont turn this discussion in to a bible study. If you really want to know ask Jesus Christ to show you the answer.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

I am sorely tempted but I wont turn this discussion in to a bible study. If you really want to know ask Jesus Christ to show you the answer.

Why? Are your own mental faculties not enough?

If it is indeed "His Word" meant for everyone, then why isn't it clear and concise enough to be read without divination?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

If you really want to know ask Jesus Christ to show you the answer.

Yo Christ, get your ass down here because I've got a witch and I don't know what to do with her.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

"So if I encountered a witch should I let her live (Exodus 20:13) or kill her (Exodus 22:18)?"

Duo and magic, please, drop any pretense to being theological scholars. If you haven't the basic knowledge of the Old and New Covenants (something, mind you, that a 3rd grade Vacation Bible School attendee could describe at length), you should probably take a less hostile and haughty tone.

kinky, even within the Old Covenant Israeli society, I see no contradiction at all. Whatever your ill-considered opinion on the difference between "murder" and "divinely-ordered execution" may be, they are clearly different concepts.

Duo, I'd like to heard this explained: "I think the Christian concept of "God" in and of itself is a contradiction."

(By the way, I've lost any inhibition at taking this line, since the topic creator doesn't mind how blatantly off-topic it all is.)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by GhaleonQ

Duo and magic, please, drop any pretense to being theological scholars. If you haven't the basic knowledge of the Old and New Covenants (something, mind you, that a 3rd grade Vacation Bible School attendee could describe at length), you should probably take a less hostile and haughty tone.

I'm Jewish so screw your 'New' Covenant gentile, and you should probably take a less hostile and haughty tone unless you want to incur the wrath of our Zionist banks.

Originally Posted by GhaleonQ

kinky, even within the Old Covenant Israeli society, I see no contradiction at all. Whatever your ill-considered opinion on the difference between "murder" and "divinely-ordered execution" may be, they are clearly different concepts.

Perhaps you could tell me where in the Bible it makes the distinction between murder and 'divinely-ordered execution'. From what I see, the only difference is semantic.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?