im guessing your point on Conversational Pressure is that, by using Conversational Pressure it causes religous person to think of an exsplainable alternitive to life. so instead of beliving in somthing that you lived with Conversational Pressure helps you look and concider somthign else.so what? isnt this just conversion? what does this have to with the existance of God?not beliving in a religous exsplanation for why God exist and trusting a scientific answer to life is a persons choice in life.yes chewing tobacco is bad so? many people do it anyways even though its not adviced some people do it anyways, some beacuse it is an life habit, some because they like it. what religion you belive in countd on your faith to it.even if many scientific theorys have been suggested most people are religious have faith in thier religion, even if it cannot be proved, religion is based on faith.you cannot feel God. you cannot see God, you cannot feel him, this is based on a persons faith towards him, if a person does have faith then why should the feel pressure?also by continuing to pressure like that somthings wont be exsplained."why do do you breathe?""to live""why do you live""why not?"science hasnt been able to exsplain everything. so far we are just a freak accident.i personally like the big bang and big crunch theory but i think the big crunch theory was disproven...
God real or not?
Started by
Guest_stubblehamster
, Feb 15 2005 12:22 AM
6399 replies to this topic
#4202
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 15 April 2007 - 08:28 PM
Religion, if put under similar pressures, would also follow suit in such modes of discourse. And, should the individual recieve enough questioning, the person may take it upon themselves to actually read up on the subject, and make some decisions that his/her pastor/priest did not prescribe to them.So, in effect, you just bother the hell out of the person, insulting their religious thinkings, until they change it?That sounds like a jackassery thing to do, and this is coming from a jackass...If you miss a prayer, are you going to be punished. That sound silly.To be fair, while Islam stresses the importance of praying to Allah five times a day, if you're busy doing something for life-or-death, the rule is excempt. After all, if you're watching TV and you don't want to pray, that shows that you care about the TV more than God, and I think that's the only "You're going right to hell" sin in Islam (not exactly a TV...)And you seem to think that every religious person must be brainwashed by their Pastor/Priest/Rabbi/Immam/Whatever. The fact is, they aren't. Oh, some are, but the majority are not.
#4203
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 15 April 2007 - 09:23 PM
Ah, but at the dawn of scientific observation the initial revelations of the pure artistry of our world seemed to only further the argument for a creator. Think if we had said to these scientists "You might has just stop here, there seems to be no signs that you will ever find anything that could disprove our creators." My point is that regardless of the current trends in science or philosophy, it is never in our place treat alternative thinkers, as long as they remind open-minded and accepting of argumentation, as anything but intellectual equals. I think you would agree Zen, but I think the majority of individuals who hold the same views as you think anyone, regardless intellectual capacity, is just some nutjob the second he says anything about God. Incidentally, I am not defending the sorts of people who hold their religious views as irrefutable truths in their lives. I think these people have just as negative effect, if not more, than scientists who scoff at anyone who mentions God. In short, while I have certainly positioned myself at least somewhat on the thiest side of this debate, I am condemning close-mindedness on both sides.The reality of the situation is: universal creation is becoming more and more a secular theory, and has no signs of switching to a theistic tone, or gathering any sort of data that would suggest theistic explanation.
Zen, you've made my own point clearer even to myself. The very nature of science keeps it from truly answering the questions I've been asking. What I am trying to say, and I think much of the scientific world would disagree, is that a question lying outside the scope of science does not make it a bad question, just an unscientific question. There seems to be this rapidly increasing conversational norm that talking about something in anything but scientific norms is utterly unintellectual, and I just don't understand that. You've given in-depth, very possibly true descriptions of how things in our universe work, but I think you're aware they aren't really answers to the questions I was asking, as the rest of your paragraph suggests. Science can offer beautiful, insightful descriptions of how things came to be; but there still remains these philosophical issues I'm talking about that God would seem to answer just as well, if not better, as thermodynamics. The neo-atheist movemement is throwing a fit about this reality because for the first time in 50 years, it may just cut them out of the conversation. And this is my only problem with the neo-atheist movement: I don't understand why they can't just say "sure there might be a God out there, I don't know, but he certainly isn't the kind of a God you all are talking about," and continue ripping evangelicals to shreads as they have. I think they would gain much more support from religious centrists than they think they would.I believe "to what end?" is answered by thermodynamics. Eventually the universe will cool down to a point where nothing can function any longer because of a lack of potential energy. This has been named Heat Death, and I would certainly say that, in relation to existence, it certainly gives an "end" to the universe. Obviously this is not quite the same "end" as was put forward by your question, but it does, in a way, fit and relates to the topic. If there is some inherent "reason" to the universe existing outside of the notion that our laws of nature created it thus, this "end" to the universe takes a certain air away from that "reason". In fact, Heat Death would suggest that the universe, if created, was made to end. Certainly a god-figure could be more creative?As to the "why" part of the question, from a scientific stand-point it is often indistinguishable from that of the "how". To pin down this rather abstract statement, allow an example: scientific analysis states that a genetic trait survives natural selection because it was better suited to survival than rival genes. It even elaborates on the idea by stating why a gene is more suited to survival than another: an example is needed to display this. The gene that gives tiger stripes (Yes, this is a very broad example that relates to a very large scale genetic trait) survives because the tigers that did not have stripes were less effective at hunting, and starved more often than tigers with stripes, thus removing the inferior gene from the gene pool. In this way, both the "Why" and the "How" of the example are the same. This is just an example of how scientific reasoning is structured. It may be imperfect in dealing with some philosophical questions, but in the realm of science and what science applies to, it suffices.Science is concerned with how things work, and what causes them to work that way. "Why" in relation to purpose is not something that is within science's scope of care. Darwin was not answering the question: why are we the way we are? He answered the question: How is it that we came to be like this? There is a subtle difference there that becomes paramount to a philosopher. Science cannot answer the question: Why is it wrong to murder someone? There is no causation, or empirical value there.
I completely disagree, for the first time in a while Zen. "Does God exist" is a purely philosophical question. Discussing the existence of anything, in the purest sense, is an entirely philosophical issue. Science operates under a predetermined definition of what it means "to exist," which is founded upon assertions that philosophy still legitimately questions. I think a question like "Does God exist within our universe" or something like that could be considered a scientific question; for a question to be scientific there needs to be some kind of environmental limitations. The question of "existence," in the purest sense, has no such limitations. I'll address the rest later. I know I've been slacking on the thread, I've just been busy as hell with the semester coming to an end.Now, Dawkins does not deal with religion on a philosophical level, because, as he lays out in The God Delusion, the question of the existence of a god-figure is a scientific question. The question is "Does God Exist?" not "Why does God exist?". Even the "Why does God exist?" question can be rephrased without change of meaning to: How is it that God exists? Even the cop out proof by necessity (he exists because we need purpose, or morality, or whatever) fits the second question even though it seems to try and keep empiricism out of the idea. The proof by necessity says God exists because he fills the need of the people. The answer applies equally to each question. Sorry, tangent aside now: The question "Does God Exist?" is empirical and therefore scientific in scope. God either does, or does not exist. God's existence isn't contingent on whether or not universe creation has meaning. The meaning behind creation, however, may certainly seem contingent on God's existence.
#4204
Guest_Xynk`
Guest_Xynk`
-
- Guest
Posted 15 April 2007 - 09:38 PM
Pagan. Not Neopagan. That stuff's lame. There is no single being that created EVERYTHING. It's impossible.
#4205
Guest_Evilonigiri
Guest_Evilonigiri
-
- Guest
Posted 15 April 2007 - 10:37 PM
When we think of god, we think of a superior human being. The mere fact that we think a superior human being created life and all shows that all of this is man made. Why is god some sort of being modeled after humans? Maybe there is a god, but all I can say is that religion gives us hope and I truly believe in some of the teachings involved. Religion gives us hope, allowing us to look forward in life. I stand at the middle, saying "If there is a god, great. If there isn't one, life goes on."
#4206
Guest_KureNeko
Guest_KureNeko
-
- Guest
Posted 15 April 2007 - 10:44 PM
I wouldn't believe there is just god. I'm more of a there is a god/goddess for everything out there, since watching over everything would be daunting, no?
#4207
Guest_lxc789
Guest_lxc789
-
- Guest
Posted 16 April 2007 - 03:02 AM
Read Dawkins' The God Delusion, or the Selfish Gene and you will see that we are not the effect of random spontaneous actions, or a 'freak accident'. In fact, back in the 1800's a man by the name of Charles Darwin disproved the fact that we are not freak accidents by his theory of 'survival of the fittest'. Nature would choose between a striped tiger and a tiger with no stripes because the unstriped tigers would be less camolflagued and could not sneak up on their prey, which would then lead to starvation; the tigers with the stripes would be able to hide and thus attain food. There are numerous other examples as well, such as the birds of the Galapagos islands where Darwin first devised his theory. So, you really can't say that we, humans, or any other living being was caused by a freak accident. For some reason nature favored a larger brain, opposable thumbs, the ability to use tools; that is why we are what and who we are today. Humans are still ever evolving.science hasnt been able to exsplain everything. so far we are just a freak accident.
#4208
Guest_Ametsuyu
Guest_Ametsuyu
-
- Guest
Posted 16 April 2007 - 04:21 AM
God is real, look at the Bible, the events, everything! Great things that has ever happend to you was a blessing from him. From the smallest things to the biggest. Thats why you can never give yourself credit for success, but give God credit for blessing you with success. And of course all people sin, even christians, but you can always repent and ask for forgiveness, even those who have murdered.And freak accident? yeah right. LOL, all of a sudden bacteria turned into fishes, fishes turned into dinosaurs, mammal, etc. You call that a freak accident? And was the Big Bang also an accident? There is always a reason to everything, even those that have not yet been found.And, Gods and Godesses....hmm, this is not mythology. Man! it ticks me off when i hear Gods, with the 's' . But by what KureNeko is sayin i think youre trying to say that there is a specific god for each and everyone, that each person has ther own god? Well no, not gods, but Angels. God have angels to watch over each and everyone.Everything was done step by step, thats all i can say.
#4209
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 16 April 2007 - 05:01 AM
You are everything wrong with religion today.God is real, look at the Bible, the events, everything! Great things that has ever happend to you was a blessing from him. From the smallest things to the biggest. Thats why you can never give yourself credit for success, but give God credit for blessing you with success. And of course all people sin, even christians, but you can always repent and ask for forgiveness, even those who have murdered.And freak accident? yeah right. LOL, all of a sudden bacteria turned into fishes, fishes turned into dinosaurs, mammal, etc. You call that a freak accident? And was the Big Bang also an accident? There is always a reason to everything, even those that have not yet been found.And, Gods and Godesses....hmm, this is not mythology. Man! it ticks me off when i hear Gods, with the 's' . But by what KureNeko is sayin i think youre trying to say that there is a specific god for each and everyone, that each person has ther own god? Well no, not gods, but Angels. God have angels to watch over each and everyone.Everything was done step by step, thats all i can say.
#4210
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 16 April 2007 - 05:55 AM
You've definitely defined Harris's view accurately, let me explain why I don't understand it's validity. Essentially he concedes that religious moderates aren't doing any of the sorts of things he spends the majority of his books berating (terrorism, lobbying against STD vaccines, lobbying against stem cell research.) Then he just starts making claims all over the place. He claims religious moderates propogate the taboo on atheistic discussion, yet his books, as well as Dawkins's and Dennet's are best sellers in a nation that is apparently laden with Christians who want noting to do with what he's saying. The contemporary Catholic church would be considered one of the more moderate religious institutions right now (in my opinion.) I'm Catholic and I go to church every week, but I'm yet to hear any priests damning Harris or Dawkins along with anyone who reads or agrees anything they say. Rather than just going through every asinine claim Harris makes about religious moderates, this is really what my view boils down to: I don't understand how Harris can legitimately disapprove of someone who is perfectly willing to accept stem cell research, the fact that God may not exist, condemns fundamentalism, etcetera; but chooses to baptize his children and take them to church weekly to celebrate the religious tradition of his family.Also, Harris does address religious moderates, perhaps not in his book, which I have not yet read. He does so in a lecture for the New York Society for Ethical Culture: Center for Inquiry. This lecture aired November 16th, 2005 and is primarily structured to address moderates. I would assume that it complements his book appropriately, and would be something of a supplement to all of those interested in his work and views. I believe that the broadcast was done only on C-SPAN2 -- Book TV. But, I may be wrong about that. The lecture follows to state that moderates simply harbour the thoughts of fundamentalists, and create a large taboo around the discussion of any problem one might have with theism. The taboo, he suggests, is what makes religious thought so incompatible with logical, honest discourse, and lies at the very root of the religious fundamentalist problem. Moderation is not a solution, it is simply less violent, but still propagates all the violent religious tendencies found in fundamentalism. He talks at length of the hypocrisy of these moderates, labelling them as: people who do not look to religion for empirical evidence for their faith, but for meaning in its stead. In short, they believe that since the message of their religions is "good", then it is still logically valid. Of course, most modern morals and ethics follow nothing in the bible in a literal sense, and very little in an abstract sense, so this faith is ill placed still, even if evidence through spiritual "meaning" were logically valid in the first place. Just because moderates' faith is based on non-literal interpretation of a scripture, than doesn't say anything for the proof of God one way or the other, and thus adds no logic to the basis of that scripture. This said, that doesn't mean moderates do not take some passages from the bible literally (they certainly do).Basically, the idea stands that moderates are just as lacking in logic as fundamentalists, and just as dangerous to modern society.
Sometimes I think I'm a church-going atheist...Religious liberalism is not what religious moderates keep to. You, sir, are not a religious moderate. You are a non-religious deist.
#4211
Guest_Ametsuyu
Guest_Ametsuyu
-
- Guest
Posted 17 April 2007 - 01:52 AM
Um, we're talking about God, not Jesus. And he did rise up from the dead, which is going to be the last.Oh hell no, sorry 4 the others, no offenze, but I just can't seem to believe that someone stands up after dying!
#4212
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 17 April 2007 - 01:55 AM
And how exactly are you so sure of this? The people who founded Christianity weren't even sure about the whole issue of Jesus coming back to life.Um, we're talking about God, not Jesus. And he did rise up from the dead, which is going to be the last.
#4213
Guest_vega.exe
Guest_vega.exe
-
- Guest
Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:00 AM
I really can't believe there is some mystic being watching over us.I think we are just here to fulfill our own individual purpose. you set your own path down the road of life.it's not preset. anyway, I believe more in Scientology.and besides' what proof has there ever been?
#4214
Guest_Ametsuyu
Guest_Ametsuyu
-
- Guest
Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:02 AM
Its either: 1.They dont believe. or 2.Why would they call themselves christians then?Why would christians not believe Jesus rose up from the dead. I dont believe those are Christians at all.And how exactly are you so sure of this? The people who founded Christianity weren't even sure about the whole issue of Jesus coming back to life.
#4215
Guest_Ametsuyu
Guest_Ametsuyu
-
- Guest
Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:12 AM
Yup, that is correct, but you cant think of it as just a thought.If you believe in God, then there is one. If you believe there is no God, then there is no God in your life.
#4216
Guest_termin8or123
Guest_termin8or123
-
- Guest
Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:13 AM
Hey I wanted to post my un-superior opinion about this. I'm not going into a religous debate, but I believe in god all the way, and after we die, you'll find out what happens truely. But anyways there are some very interesting posts.
#4217
Guest_ZxSeph
Guest_ZxSeph
-
- Guest
Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:33 AM
That one about the three wise men.This was about 4-5 years ago, i dont know exactly WHAT, but i know there were words there, and voices screaming in the background being tortured....it was insane. we stopped playing with records after that
#4218
Guest_axyarthur
Guest_axyarthur
-
- Guest
Posted 17 April 2007 - 08:04 AM
I'm just responding to your first point. Your other points, I'm sure are just as interesting but I will not comment on them here. You seem to think that evolution or science in general is not open to free thinking and we're only told what's true or what's not. I think that misses the point of science. Scientists do not believe in evolution because they are told, they believe it because there are empirical evidence to support it. We can observe in nature, in genetics, and in foissil records evidence that supports evolution. That is the major difference between scientific theory and religious beliefs, that science can be and must be verified by experimental means. You cannot say the same for religious beliefs. "God created man in his image," says the Bible. Can you perform an experiment to prove the statement? Obvious you cannot. It is a statement you can either believe in or not believe in. There's no way to verify it . In science, a theory must stand up to rigorous and repeated tests in order to remain valid. The theory of evolution, though incomplete, is at present the most "suitable" explanation for the origin or different organisms on this earth. But in the future there may be a more complete theory to replace it. Science is an ever changing process, and new theories are developed to replace old ones all the time. So the idea that science is fixed and no dissent can be tolerated is just not true. As for evolution being taught in schools, my view is that science should be taught in science class, and whatever your views are on evolution, it is science and it should be taught. Finally, I don't see any meaning to your final example of earth being a box. I mean, if someone thinks that the earth is a box, he/she certainly has the right to think that, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still false. It's a fact that the earth is very close to a sphere and no amount of "free thinking" can change that.1. Ok, so I guess you'd rather go to a liberal college we're they tell you to believe evolution or be kicked out of school. I really see freedom of thinking there. Do you actually know how many professors have been fired for not teaching evolution? Where was free thinking for them? And besides, if something is true and truly proven, why do you need to discuss it? No one argues that the earth is sphere shaped. But say a teacher in school starts teaching that it is box shaped. Would it be wrong or right to quiet him? If you did quiet him, you're hampering his free thinking, but if not, then he is teaching falsely to his students.2. We have war because man is not perfect and we are all sinners. As long as the earth still exists, we're always going to have war. Do you think if suddenly the world became devoid of religion we'd be safer?3. The Bible recognizes that men and women are different. God gave men and women different tasks and jobs to do. Men can't do everying in the world and neither can women. God designed us to perform different tasks and that's that.4. Its true that many religions promote death to infidels or non-believers, but the Bible say that Christians should love their enemies and pray for them. I am in no way saying that every person who calls themself a Christian potrays this perfectly, because many who claim to be Christians are only so on the outside. The Bible promotes unity across the world, but under Jesus. Unity otherwise is just humanitarian thinking.5. The fear of God is part of the Bible. He is much more powerful that us and sustains us all so some fear is in order. Unbelievers should fear the fate of hell as well, since it is very serious and very eternal. However, after salvation, the Bible shows that we have the Holy Spirit in us. We should still be concerned about life hell and the devil, but we no longer need to fear him since we now have the Holy Spirit. The Bible even says that the spirit of fear does not come from God but from the evil one.6. Faith is very much a big part of Christianity. However it is not all blind faith. God manifests himself all throughout the world in his amazing creation. I find it very hard to see the details of the human body and its complex parts and to say that it all happened randomly over millions of years. Proof is all around us. If you would see a house in the middle of a field and you were asked how it got there, you would guess that someone built it. That would be a logical guess. You probably wouldn't think that it got there from the explosion of a lumber yard. However many people just accept the idea that complex organisms just came from a big band and lots of time.7. Sadly, nowadays you'd be hard pressed to find a nation that is founded on morality. As far as America, I would say that its been a while since religion was in charge. For a nation to thrive, it must be completely transformed by the word of God and live it out. If this does not happen, you can never say for sure that religion won't cause a nation to thrive.8. I'm so glad you brought this one up because this is one of the most misunderstood points about the Bible. I could have written an entire post just on this. First of all lets give some examples of scientist throughout history who were Christians. Carolus Linnaeus, known as the Father of Taxonomy (the system of scientific names, like "homo sapiens") grew up the son of a Lutheran pastor and said all his life that the reason he was fascinated by science was to see deeper in the world that God created and to see his character in it. Isaac Newton (who "discovered" gravity) was inspired by his faith in his work and he accepted the creation accounts in the bible as literal. Newton was also laid the foundations for modern calculus. Louis Pasteur, known as the father of bacteriology, was also motivated by his faith. Whenever he made discoveries, he said that it only made his view of God more important. One of his major accomplishments was the sterilization of food and drink to make it safer for us. This process is now known as “pasteurization” (coined from his name). Seconly I want to look at science fould right in the Bible. Many misconceptions that men have had abou the universe throughout history could have been cleared up just by looking in God's word. Many people in history believed that the earth was flat however in Isaiah 40:22 it says that "He (God) sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." Also, in the old days many people thought that below the sea, it was just flat land, and not that deep. However in 2 Samuel 22:16 it says that "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils." We know now today that the seas are very deep and that they have valleys at the bottom. There are many more examples that aren't listed here too.9. Restrictions are put in place for our good. Say for instince regarding sex (because that is one of the big ones). Statistics are out that say nearly 20% percent or people in the US have STDs. That is a lot of people, when you factor in how much of the population you would presume to be sexually active. Also with casual sex on the rise, abortion numbers are also increasing, as we need a method to escape one of the consequences of sin. People say that they aren't people but just ask anyone who has had an abortion. Why not just put it up for adoption? Its because we knew that it was wrong to sin in the first place and we try to hide it. God asks us to wait for the proper time after marriage, which is when he designed sex to be used. This is only for our protection, because even though we like to think of ourselves as invincible, the simple truth is we are not. Lastly I would just like to say that many people try to put restrictions on God or the miracles he does. To explain this I'm going to use an analogy. Since this is a rom site its about games (I know this is a goofy analogy, but I thought it was appropriate). Suppose you and I live in Mushroom Kingdom. We start discussing how it all got here: where we came from, the castle, and the whole world. I say that a higher being created it all. You're argument though is how could anyone make this world. Your idea is that they would need to be big and powerful and that there just aren't enough mushrooms and power stars for this to be. From outside the world, we see that a programmer made the world. He labored over it getting everything just right so that the world could exist. But since he made the world, you can't restrict him to the limits of that world. That is just nonsense. You can't argue away God by saying its physically impossible or something like that. He created our world, its nature, and the scientific laws that govern it. He isn't limited to them. I hope this all made some sense. Thanks for reading this if you made it all the way through.
#4219
PK-S
-
- Active Member
-
- 654 posts
Sadistic Idiot
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 17 April 2007 - 08:16 AM
I personally don't believe in God but I kinda' believe in Jesus.Where did God come from? The Big Bang? Where'd the Big Bang come from? God?Which came first, God or the Big Bang!
^Hyou^
Pressie(s): [Hyou] [-King Đedede-]
#4220
Guest_ketoman
Guest_ketoman
-
- Guest
Posted 18 April 2007 - 12:55 AM
I used to believe in God because I believed I felt Him on a few occasions. One was at a large gathering(Acquire the Fire if that means anything to any of you), and another was just in my room listening to good n' worshipful music.But then I spent a long time thinking, and thinking... and I've decided that I don't want to base any beliefs off of emotion, which is what I was doing. Also, I think the whole idea of an organized religion is probably the worst thing to ever come about for people's own individual spirituality. There's so much "Christian" stuff out there that isn't even remotely close to what's in the Bible, just because it's such a popular thing. And I hate it. Just let me sit quietly alone and feel my god, and know that that is enough, while you go out and make fools of yourselves.I should mention that I don't truly believe with every ounce of my being in any God or in any story of what will happen to me when I die. And I'm okay with that. I am content to keep searching. I could search until I die, and that'd be okay, too. Besides, knowing what little of myself as I do, I figure if I was leaning towards belief in the Christian God when I was about to die, I'd commit suicide at the last minute just to show 'em.Oh, and I know, one of the big things in modern Christianity goes something like, "SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING? THERE IS A GOD-SHAPED HOLE IN YOUR HEART THAT NOTHING ELSE CAN FILL." Well, first let me decide for myself that there is a "hole in my heart," and then I'll think about that God thing. But I'm pretty sure I've tried it, so... shut up.Another idea I just had- I think the perfect god would be one that would be completely understanding. For example, we'd be rollin' in my Escalade, smokin' some BC bud, and just hanging out. Then the god would be like, "what the **** man this **** sucks" as he pointed at the radio, and I'd say, "**** dawg you're right" and put on some Journey. Then we'd sing along to Wheel in the Sky and my god would know all the words.
Edited by ketoman, 18 April 2007 - 12:58 AM.
#4221
Guest_Ametsuyu
Guest_Ametsuyu
-
- Guest
Posted 18 April 2007 - 01:15 AM
Yes, you are correct. God said he would rather, if people go and pray alone by theirselves so it is just you and him, than to go out into the world screaming "God, give us today our daily bread!" And like you, i am also searching, but for who i am and i know that one day the answer will come.I think that some christians are being stupid and trying to be perfect for god. they are trying so desperately that it separates them from the world, but what he really wants is the faith and the passionate love from us. Not desperately trying to destroy your life while shuffling to do perfect things. You have to take care af your own body too. And that means doing the things you like to do even if sometimes it doesn't go according to God's word.I used to believe in God because I believed I felt Him on a few occasions. One was at a large gathering(Acquire the Fire if that means anything to any of you), and another was just in my room listening to good n' worshipful music.But then I spent a long time thinking, and thinking... and I've decided that I don't want to base any beliefs off of emotion, which is what I was doing. Also, I think the whole idea of an organized religion is probably the worst thing to ever come about for people's own individual spirituality. There's so much "Christian" stuff out there that isn't even remotely close to what's in the Bible, just because it's such a popular thing. And I hate it. Just let me sit quietly alone and feel my god, and know that that is enough, while you go out and make fools of yourselves.I should mention that I don't truly believe with every ounce of my being in any God or in any story of what will happen to me when I die. And I'm okay with that. I am content to keep searching. I could search until I die, and that'd be okay, too. Besides, knowing what little of myself as I do, I figure if I was leaning towards belief in the Christian God when I was about to die, I'd commit suicide at the last minute just to show 'em.Oh, and I know, one of the big things in modern Christianity goes something like, "SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING? THERE IS A GOD-SHAPED HOLE IN YOUR HEART THAT NOTHING ELSE CAN FILL." Well, first let me decide for myself that there is a "hole in my heart," and then I'll think about that God thing. But I'm pretty sure I've tried it, so... shut up.Another idea I just had- I think the perfect god would be one that would be completely understanding. For example, we'd be rollin' in my Escalade, smokin' some BC bud, and just hanging out. Then the god would be like, "what the **** man this **** sucks" as he pointed at the radio, and I'd say, "**** dawg you're right" and put on some Journey. Then we'd sing along to Wheel in the Sky and my god would know all the words.
#4222
38542788
-
- Member
-
- 366 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 2
Neutral
Posted 18 April 2007 - 01:38 AM
I said that because it's true.Why do you even claim to be a Christian if you haven't read the scriptures associated with that religion?And even if you accept faith as a viable argument for a certain position, what you have faith in must be internally consistent, in other words, you cannot believe in the statement "a=b and a≠b", it's a logical impossibility.But arguing that with you at this point would be rather pointless, you haven't even read the Christian scriptures.i knew youd say that, so to answer your question...i dont really like reading the bible, but i'm on the first chapter of the new testament and its much more informative. I dont really believe on contradicting, but when it comes clear, its good to know.
#4223
Guest_Ametsuyu
Guest_Ametsuyu
-
- Guest
Posted 18 April 2007 - 01:58 AM
First of all, I didn't say i haven't read the Bible yet and second, you dont have to read the bible to be a christian because reading the bible is just a small piece of being a Christian. Think about it, if the bible was the most important thing that a christian had to do then, he/she would only concentrate on the Bible and not on God, however, concentrate on God and everything will follow through.I said that because it's true.Why do you even claim to be a Christian if you haven't read the scriptures associated with that religion?And even if you accept faith as a viable argument for a certain position, what you have faith in must be internally consistent, in other words, you cannot believe in the statement "a=b and a≠b", it's a logical impossibility.But arguing that with you at this point would be rather pointless, you haven't even read the Christian scriptures.
#4224
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 18 April 2007 - 02:13 AM
First of all, I didn't say i haven't read the Bible yet and second, you dont have to read the bible to be a christian because reading the bible is just a small piece of being a Christian. Think about it, if the bible was the most important thing that a christian had to do then, he/she would only concentrate on the Bible and not on God, however, concentrate on God and everything will follow through.Dude, your arugement sucks. The Bible is the word of God, am I correct?In the Middle Ages, people used to flock to churches just to hear the preist read from the Bible in Latin. As they were not educated enough to speak Latin, they couldn't understand a damn thing he said, but they still went, to make sure that they followed the path of God, and got to heaven, thinking that they deserved it, after working for hours in the fields just to see most of it go to their Lord/Cheiftan.And now you're complaining about reading a book, which has been the most influential on Western history for alot of its existance, and, to you, tells you exactly what God wants you to do to prevent you from going to Hell?im an aethist, but i do believe in philosophies like confucianism/bhuddism/taoismTo Confucianism: In direct opposition with Taoism.To Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy. Pacifism is what you mean.To Taoism: In direct opposition with Confucianism. Also, you're an anarchist. Remember that.
Edited by الِش, 18 April 2007 - 02:19 AM.
#4225
Guest_Ametsuyu
Guest_Ametsuyu
-
- Guest
Posted 18 April 2007 - 02:37 AM
You say that i am complaining? i think your not following what im trying to say. Nope, i'm not complaining. I'm not saying that you "shouldn't" read the bible, but just dont put the things you learn in front of God...Actually, dont put anything in front of God. When you're worrying so much about "following the path of God" that is not the best way to do it, i mean worrying. Why dont you try to do everything according to his words, can you do it? OF course not! NO ONE can.The Bible of course, tells exactly what God wants you to do to prevent you from going to hell, like not to kill, not to commit adultry, etc. But there is no way a human can do that, that is why there is Repentance and Forgiveness.My fault, if i said the Bible was not important at all.First of all, I didn't say i haven't read the Bible yet and second, you dont have to read the bible to be a christian because reading the bible is just a small piece of being a Christian. Think about it, if the bible was the most important thing that a christian had to do then, he/she would only concentrate on the Bible and not on God, however, concentrate on God and everything will follow through.Dude, your arugement sucks. The Bible is the word of God, am I correct?In the Middle Ages, people used to flock to churches just to hear the preist read from the Bible in Latin. As they were not educated enough to speak Latin, they couldn't understand a damn thing he said, but they still went, to make sure that they followed the path of God, and got to heaven, thinking that they deserved it, after working for hours in the fields just to see most of it go to their Lord/Cheiftan.And now you're complaining about reading a book, which has been the most influential on Western history for alot of its existance, and, to you, tells you exactly what God wants you to do to prevent you from going to Hell?im an aethist, but i do believe in philosophies like confucianism/bhuddism/taoismTo Confucianism: In direct opposition with Taoism.To Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy. Pacifism is what you mean.To Taoism: In direct opposition with Confucianism. Also, you're an anarchist. Remember that.
![[Hyou]](http://www.dgemu.com/forums/index.php?autocom=out&go=http%3A%2F%2Fi115.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn303%2Ftoonham%2FSignatures%2FMSPaintPKStarstorm.gif){kind=link}
![[-King Đedede-]](http://www.dgemu.com/forums/index.php?autocom=out&go=http%3A%2F%2Fi209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb46%2FPK-S%2FPKS.jpg){kind=link}