can somebody help me understand this?!

Haha, no thank you.,that was a very pleasant surprise. I'm glad you liked it, I like your posts, too..

I actually got that from a Zen talk I heard on youtube by Bon Yeon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

If you were to ask me about the basis for my belief in the findings of biology I would tell you that those findings have been tested.

You get defensive when asked about the basis of your beliefs, as if 'God' were incompetent to defend himself against attack and it was up to you to do so. The existence of God is not within my competence either to affirm or disprove; it is the authority and the touchiness of those who profess to 'know' Him that I am curious about.

---

And I tell you my beliefs have been tested far more than yours, but you find the methods of testing to be unsatisfactory and dismiss them. Do you really believe that the thousands, perhaps even millions of miracles people have experienced even in the last century can all just be dismissed? If I tell you I've seen a woman in a wheelchair who has been there since she was a teenager walk after being prayed over, how are you going to explain it? Are you going to dismiss it because you can't apply the scientific method to it? seems to me that the scientific method is a rather limiting box in terms of human experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

It's true though, that when you're on one side you really do believe it's true. As Donnie Darko said from the movie Donnie Darko, "I want to believe I'm not alone, but I don't know. I've just never seen any proof, you know? I don't debate it anymore. I used to, but I don't anymore. You could debate it all your life and not be anywhere further. It's absurd! So I just don't debate it anymore."

I agree with Feynman. Living and not knowing, or living and being alone is nothing terrible. I don't fear death, etc., either. Some theologians think it's inherent that all people are terrified by death, etc., like Camus, and it just doesn't make sense.

And about God and not knowing, the only reason we consider it at all, and are debating it, is because of the precise way we were raised. We were raised, taught the issue, etc., talked with people about it ever since our childhood and schooldays. If, for example, you never knew anything about it, you wouldn't think anything about it. Consider a child raised in a small community, seperate from the modern world. She was taught nothing about religion or God, she just lived with nature, knew plants and animals and the seasons in all their freshness and beauty, the warmth of the sun in the summer, the grass on her bare feet and the streams, and winter in all its vigor and freshness, and lived with her family and community and people who loved her, but she never knew God - then she would think of the world as a safe place, she would be happy and think of the world as a good place, and and she wouldn't be sad because she was alone in the universe or unhappy because she didn't know...theology.

The Christian mythic narrative, as so-and-so calls it, has many adherents. Some of them were, really did fit the negative stereotype some atheists have of Christians. I mean the ones who were the opposite of what the ideal was - what Christ was - the ones you just want see- you say you follow Christ!?? The type of person Nietzsche thought a Christian was. But obviously the way it should be is a good religion, one that preaches compassion and enlightenment, etc., i.e., if one follows Jesus. I think one problem is that people take the bible too literally. It's a mythic narrative. There are lots of others. It doesn't have a monopoly on truth, rationality, logic, and everything good, goodness. It isn't the one and only truth. Going through Buddha is the same as going through Christ. Proof: the actions are the same, and the thoughts are the same.

That's my opinion. Hope that helps, stella. I find it strange when people take strange things for granted; things that are strange to me. Like, we should all be depressed, or things should be this way or that, pretty much almost anything. Like, if someone bases everything on the bible. Then you're in an argument with them, and they use a verse from the bible as evidence, or proof. It's not evidence, it's only the point you made. And you're giving me another source for it. That doesn't convince me. Or when people argue about who's right. It's very strange. I don't have anything to prove to anyone. But, I understand you when you say it's hard to grasp how someone could, not believe anything, because we all feel that way about people who believe different things.

---

Ultimate truth by it's very nature has to be objective. Therefore the vast majority of what you've said is entirely without foundation. The fact that you say going through Buddha and Christ is one in the same is telling considering that Buddha's idea of salvation is ceasing to exist and Christ's is being restored to ones original design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorilla King

And I tell you my beliefs have been tested far more than yours,

---

You see, that is what I think it comes down to with you, some sort of personal competition (and one, I may say, that you are determined to win by any means available to you): "my beliefs have been tested far more than yours," my beliefs are truer, better, bigger, more moral &c., &c. than yours, underlying which, I'm inclined to conjecture, is the core belief: I'm better than you are.

So be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorilla King

Ultimate truth by it's very nature has to be objective. Therefore the vast majority of what you've said is entirely without foundation. The fact that you say going through Buddha and Christ is one in the same is telling considering that Buddha's idea of salvation is ceasing to exist and Christ's is being restored to ones original design.

---

No you have it opposite with Christ and Buddha. Haha, sorry, but I don't know what to say. If you had read anything the Buddha said you would not say something like that. I mean, you are basically saying the Buddha said the solution to life was suicide.

As far as subjectivity and objectivity, let me tell you, they are both good. And I don't think any of my points were any of the things you might think they were.

:)
You should read my post on page 8. :)

Peace,
Nikolai

Nikolai, I believe GK's point is that Christianity is, by its nature, exclusive. Christ did, after all, say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Paul says "If anyone adds anything to these words [Scripture] he is a false teacher." The exclusivity is built directly into the faith. I don't know if it is logically possible to reconcile Buddhism and Christianity, unless of course you use Buddhism only as a means of meditation and contemplation of moral obligation.

You added words, though. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

Nikolai, I believe GK's point is that Christianity is, by its nature, exclusive. Christ did, after all, say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Paul says "If anyone adds anything to these words [Scripture] he is a false teacher." The exclusivity is built directly into the faith. I don't know if it is logically possible to reconcile Buddhism and Christianity, unless of course you use Buddhism only as a means of meditation and contemplation of moral obligation.

---

In which case, Jesus the son and Paul, the creator of Christianity, were less than God the father who created us ALL in his image.

Just as Marx is reported to have said of the doctrine that was made from his writings, "Je ne suis pas Marxist," I sometimes imagine that Jesus, looking on at the hodge-podge of sects that claim his name, their dogmatism and in some cases their obscene wealth, "I am not a Christian."

Again, and again, and again, people throw up the argument that "Christianity must be wrong, look at its members!" That is just so wrong. I wouldn't, were I trying to decide upon a belief, judge atheism wrong because the Columbine shooters killed a girl after asking her if she believed in God. Furthermore, not every person who claims to be a Christian is really one. I recommend reading the book Real Christianity, which is a modern update of William Wilberforce's A Practical View of Christianity. The discussion of what he calls "social Christians" takes up a long time. And yes, Christ would be upset with the state of the Church-- any rational person would be. I am, for one. And Christ would not call himself a Christian anymore than Allah would call himself a Muslim.

And, yes, Paul is less than God the Father. So what? He is believed by the orthodox to have been divinely inspired in the writings of his that are included in the Bible, just as all the other biblical writers are believed to have been divinely inspired. But Christ is not less than God the Father, he IS God, with the Father. The three hypostases, or persons, of the Trinity are regarded to be "equal in power and deity." They are all equally God. The difference is solely in their function. Part of the function of the Son is to provide an image of what it means to submit wholly to the will of God... Even to the point of death by torture.

Grace and Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

Again, and again, and again, people throw up the argument that "Christianity must be wrong, look at its members!" That is just so wrong. I wouldn't, were I trying to decide upon a belief, judge atheism wrong because the Columbine shooters killed a girl after asking her if she believed in God. Furthermore, not every person who claims to be a Christian is really one. I recommend reading the book Real Christianity, which is a modern update of William Wilberforce's A Practical View of Christianity. The discussion of what he calls "social Christians" takes up a long time. And yes, Christ would be upset with the state of the Church-- any rational person would be. I am, for one. And Christ would not call himself a Christian anymore than Allah would call himself a Muslim.

And, yes, Paul is less than God the Father. So what? He is believed by the orthodox to have been divinely inspired in the writings of his that are included in the Bible, just as all the other biblical writers are believed to have been divinely inspired. But Christ is not less than God the Father, he IS God, with the Father. The three hypostases, or persons, of the Trinity are regarded to be "equal in power and deity." They are all equally God. The difference is solely in their function. Part of the function of the Son is to provide an image of what it means to submit wholly to the will of God... Even to the point of death by torture.

Grace and Peace.

---

All fine and dandy understood as allegory. Taken literally as fact? There's the rub.

Say what you want, J, I'll stick to my backward, unenlightened, patriarchal, medieval, reactionary, fundamentalist, dogmatic interpretation. Carry on with your enlightened, open-minded, modern interpretation.

Am I correct in assuming that you truly believe that Jesus meant that all non-Christians go to hell, then? I agree that it's rather exclusive, by the way.

It's not that all non-Christians go to Hell, as if Heaven is a country club or something, it's that EVERYONE is headed there without the intervention of Christ. Feel free to punch the wall if you need to.

So, how do you interpret "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." then? And...what is required for an intervention from Jesus to occur?

As I said, without Christ all go to Hell. Hence the "I am the Way..." statement. I am Calvinist, and this is how we break down the salvation process: God chooses (elects) those whom He wants to save. God, through a specific outpouring of grace, causes the elect to have faith in Christ. Faith in Christ saves a man. Christ is God, so election is intervention by Christ. Of course, you could use the same term to refer to the Crucifixion.

Seems to me that it still equates to non-believers going to Hell; if the reason is that God hasn't chosen for them to have faith in Christ or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stella

hey all, the other day i came across this quote by Voltaire:
"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him"

looking at ancient civilizations such as the Greeks and the Romans and even before that , they all didn't have an idea about "God"and so they created their own...
my question is how can someone not believe in anything how can you be an atheist?
i do believe that humans have this urge to believe in something bigger than they are no matter what this thing is....

---

I have not read all the pages in between this and the first, but I have heard it and spent a lot of time on it.

Yes, I love this quotation. Dostoevsky wrote his "Grand Inquisitor" story with this in mind, it is very good (I won't ruin it). What Dostoevsky says is that humanity is naturally submissive and must appeal to a higher power, and he expresses this through Ivan Karamazov, a cold rationalist from the novel The Brothers Karamazov.

According to Ivan, if God does not exist, then people would have made him up. He thinks this because mammals have submitted to something they admit is greater since the dawn of time. Examples of this are monarchies, military heirarchy, even more developed species of animals are members of packs led by one. Basically, it doesn't matter whether you're a piss ant or an alpha male, life has the natural inclination to be submissive, to some degree.

Furthermore, Ivan appeals to God's apparent lack of compassion and mercy, as evidenced by "Rebellion," a chapter of TBK. During his conversation with Alyosha, his brother, Ivan tells him a story of a boy that was playing with rocks and threw one, which unfortunately lands on a dog's paw. The dog belongs to a ruthless general and he is not pleased; the general orders his men to take the boy (who is now in his mother's arms), rip all his clothes off and force the boy to run. Shortly thereafter, the boy is torn to shreds by the general's hounds while the mother watches. After finishing the story, Ivan tells Alyosha that appealing to a benevolent God is nonsense, and famously states "Everything is Permitted," and that if there happens to be a dual God, and he is somehow allowed to enter heaven, he will decline the invitation on the grounds that he cannot morally accept bliss at the expense of a child's suffering.

What he means by "everything is permitted" is that there is not a God that chooses who is slayed, which person becomes ill, and that there is no necessity for justice. He says that people need to feel as though there is a reason for such atrocities, a reason that appeals to their emotions instead of say physics or philosophy. Without a sense of justice or hope, humanity would not be able to reproduce knowing that their offspring await a lifetime of being owned by physics, chemistry and psychology. Therefore, in order for humanity to exist, they need an omnipresent, benevolent God to submit to, not only to provide a reason why nature seems to not care about human suffering, but also to justify it.

Voltaire is strikingly similar to Dostoevsky in that they are both pessimists and have utterly realized the absurdity of life.

And to answer your other question, I believe this has been said before...atheism doesn't imply a belief in nothing, but moreso a disbelief in a magic God that plans all this nonsense. The difference between a believer and an atheist is hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

Seems to me that it still equates to non-believers going to Hell; if the reason is that God hasn't chosen for them to have faith in Christ or not.

---

Yes, non-believers go to Hell, but you miss the general dynamic. It is not that I am better than anyone because I believe, it is that there is only one way to atone for the horror we have become (namely, let Christ atone for you, and then accept His atonement). Additionally, I get the impression that you think of Hell as a forcibly held prison-fortress. I advise you to read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis for a different perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

I have not read all the pages in between this and the first, but I have heard it and spent a lot of time on it.

Yes, I love this quotation. Dostoevsky wrote his "Grand Inquisitor" story with this in mind, it is very good (I won't ruin it). What Dostoevsky says is that humanity is naturally submissive and must appeal to a higher power, and he expresses this through Ivan Karamazov, a cold rationalist from the novel The Brothers Karamazov.

According to Ivan, if God does not exist, then people would have made him up. He thinks this because mammals have submitted to something they admit is greater since the dawn of time. Examples of this are monarchies, military heirarchy, even more developed species of animals are members of packs led by one. Basically, it doesn't matter whether you're a piss ant or an alpha male, life has the natural inclination to be submissive, to some degree.

Furthermore, Ivan appeals to God's apparent lack of compassion and mercy, as evidenced by "Rebellion," a chapter of TBK. During his conversation with Alyosha, his brother, Ivan tells him a story of a boy that was playing with rocks and threw one, which unfortunately lands on a dog's paw. The dog belongs to a ruthless general and he is not pleased; the general orders his men to take the boy (who is now in his mother's arms), rip all his clothes off and force the boy to run. Shortly thereafter, the boy is torn to shreds by the general's hounds while the mother watches. After finishing the story, Ivan tells Alyosha that appealing to a benevolent God is nonsense, and famously states "Everything is Permitted," and that if there happens to be a dual God, and he is somehow allowed to enter heaven, he will decline the invitation on the grounds that he cannot morally accept bliss at the expense of a child's suffering.

What he means by "everything is permitted" is that there is not a God that chooses who is slayed, which person becomes ill, and that there is no necessity for justice. He says that people need to feel as though there is a reason for such atrocities, a reason that appeals to their emotions instead of say physics or philosophy. Without a sense of justice or hope, humanity would not be able to reproduce knowing that their offspring await a lifetime of being owned by physics, chemistry and psychology. Therefore, in order for humanity to exist, they need an omnipresent, benevolent God to submit to, not only to provide a reason why nature seems to not care about human suffering, but also to justify it.

Voltaire is strikingly similar to Dostoevsky in that they are both pessimists and have utterly realized the absurdity of life.

And to answer your other question, I believe this has been said before...atheism doesn't imply a belief in nothing, but moreso a disbelief in a magic God that plans all this nonsense. The difference between a believer and an atheist is hope.

---

No one said God is "magic." Don't invent your own terms, please.
And how could you blame God for the actions of a man like the general? That doesn't make sense. What would the world be like if everything wrong was miraculously stopped from happening by God? We would be living in the most successful autocracy in all of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

As I said, without Christ all go to Hell. Hence the "I am the Way..." statement. I am Calvinist, and this is how we break down the salvation process: God chooses (elects) those whom He wants to save. God, through a specific outpouring of grace, causes the elect to have faith in Christ. Faith in Christ saves a man. Christ is God, so election is intervention by Christ. Of course, you could use the same term to refer to the Crucifixion.

---

So, none of us has any choice in the matter of where we spend eternity? We either were or were not chosen by God/Christ to be saved, and that's that? Then why should we spend any time worrying about it? Nothing we can do will cause us to be saved if God hasn't chosen us, and even if we believe and behave as Christians we won't be saved if God hasn't chosen us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

Yes, non-believers go to Hell, but you miss the general dynamic. It is not that I am better than anyone because I believe, it is that there is only one way to atone for the horror we have become (namely, let Christ atone for you, and then accept His atonement). Additionally, I get the impression that you think of Hell as a forcibly held prison-fortress. I advise you to read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis for a different perspective.

---

Thanks for clarifying.

Before I go dragging out a book by him with some hard-earned money, can you give me a bit of a summary?

I can't tell whether you believe that Hell is escapable...or take the kinder view that some Christians take that Hell is simply a separation from God rather than something more like Dante's Inferno.

First of all, separation from God is WORSE than Dante's Inferno. Secondly, I am unsure whether or not, at the creation of the "new heavens and new earth" foretold in Revelations, souls in Hell will be granted redeemed bodies. It's over my head. The summary of The Great Divorce (which is a novel, but theologically rich enough to count as a book of theology): humans are presented with the choice of staying in Heaven after death. However, most have one or more hang-ups they can't overcome, and, since these would not be allowed in Heaven, they choose to remain in Hell, cherishing whatever it is they cannot give up, until even that is a misery to them.

Thanks, I'll look into that novel.

And, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. As someone with what could be considered 'a separation from God' I'd prefer that to being tortured for eternity as my choice of hell.

How can anyone be separated from an omnipresent God? Even the Psalmist doesn't think that's possible - even in Hell:


Psalm 139:7-8

Quote:

---

Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

---

The NIV translates that passage as "under the earth." It may be that separation from God means being separated from Him in certain modes (He can be more or less present to an individual at any given time) or perhaps even being unmade entirely (though I am skeptical of this).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

Thanks, I'll look into that novel.

---

You might get something out of it, and it's an enjoyable read.

Quote:

---

And, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. As someone with what could be considered 'a separation from God' I'd prefer that to being tortured for eternity as my choice of hell.

---

My point was that the typical picture of physical/pseudo-physical torture does not grasp the pain felt in the absence of God. Imagine all sense of goodness being removed... That is what it would be like, and more besides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

The NIV translates that passage as "under the earth." It may be that separation from God means being separated from Him in certain modes (He can be more or less present to an individual at any given time) or perhaps even being unmade entirely (though I am skeptical of this).

---

Good to see that you use the NIV. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

My point was that the typical picture of physical/pseudo-physical torture does not grasp the pain felt in the absence of God. Imagine all sense of goodness being removed... That is what it would be like, and more besides.

---

D'OH! Of course. I get your point now. I was forgetting to look at that from the perspective of a believer in the Christian God. (Which I am going to define very loosely for the sake of this exercise, as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god.) Yes, that would be worse than the stereotypical image of Hell.

Slipped out of the mindset, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unbeliever

So, none of us has any choice in the matter of where we spend eternity? We either were or were not chosen by God/Christ to be saved, and that's that? Then why should we spend any time worrying about it? Nothing we can do will cause us to be saved if God hasn't chosen us, and even if we believe and behave as Christians we won't be saved if God hasn't chosen us.

---

You can only believe if God elects you. The criteria for salvation is the same, it's just that the initiative lies with God. His election is reflected in temporal existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

No one said God is "magic." Don't invent your own terms, please.
And how could you blame God for the actions of a man like the general? That doesn't make sense. What would the world be like if everything wrong was miraculously stopped from happening by God? We would be living in the most successful autocracy in all of history.

---

That material is not mine, Dostoevsky wrote the book; its, uh, supposed to be pretty good...

It is pretty good, and Ivan's argument in "The Grand Inquisitor" is pretty deep. It includes a good explanation of Christianity, one I hadn't heard before, and one I could actually accept. Christ died on the Cross for our sins, etc., instead of calling down an angelic host to save himself. Had he, then all the people watching would have bowed before him, but they would have been slaves. Etc., etc., I think he also talks about saints denying themselves earthly bread so they could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I can't remember it well right now, but I liked that part too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

No one said God is "magic."

---

Are you sure? Hehe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph

That material is not mine, Dostoevsky wrote the book; its, uh, supposed to be pretty good...

---

It appeared to me that you agreed with "the material."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

You can only believe if God elects you. The criteria for salvation is the same, it's just that the initiative lies with God. His election is reflected in temporal existence.

---

For heaven’s sake, put aside your voodoo dolls, your tribal Gods and shibboleths, your priestly feathers and leopard-skins, your ever more sophisticated parsing of ancient texts, and concern yourself with over-population, global warming, starvation, the unequal distribution of wealth, pandemics...

I am, of course, concerned with these things. God is, too. He tells us to be just, well, then we must be just. He tells us to care for the poor, well, then we must care for the poor. He says a rich man cannot get into the kingdom of God anymore than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle. Well, then the rich must give away their belongings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

I am, of course, concerned with these things. God is, too. He tells us to be just, well, then we must be just. He tells us to care for the poor, well, then we must care for the poor. He says a rich man cannot get into the kingdom of God anymore than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle. Well, then the rich must give away their belongings.

---

Let us begin then with those churches that have extensive real estate holdings, artifacts of gold and silver, giving away their belongings. As for what God is or is not concerned with, I have yet to hear from him other than in a book which proclaims that it is the work of God but which is derived from many other sources of other 'Gods' who have passed away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

Let us begin then with those churches that have extensive real estate holdings, artifacts of gold and silver, giving away their belongings. As for what God is or is not concerned with, I have yet to hear from him other than in a book which proclaims that it is the work of God but which is derived from many other sources of other 'Gods' who have passed away.

---

You've made a lot of claims, now provide evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorilla King

You've made a lot of claims, now provide evidence.

---

There is none so blind as those who will not see. Which of course you might equally retort to me if I were to ask you for evidence of the existence of your God (as distinct from that of the myriad other sects and cults).

However, some sources you might consult are:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837684,00.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...n_america.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...34/ai_20226914

And many others you could Google

It will be a shame if the thread gets closed simply because some are unable to refrain from making personal comments or showing disrespect towards others' beliefs.

I don't disagree that the mega churches and such are a waste of money, but you made far more claims than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

Let us begin then with those churches that have extensive real estate holdings, artifacts of gold and silver, giving away their belongings. As for what God is or is not concerned with, I have yet to hear from him other than in a book which proclaims that it is the work of God but which is derived from many other sources of other 'Gods' who have passed away.

---

I suggest you read Mere Christianity, and pay special attention to the section in which Mr. Lewis discusses "good dreams." I believe his explanation of it appears in other of his works as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

I suggest you read Mere Christianity, and pay special attention to the section in which Mr. Lewis discusses "good dreams." I believe his explanation of it appears in other of his works as well.

---

I feel that this is hopeless and I am hereby withdrawing from the discussion. The world is filled with people who hold beliefs other than mine, in some cases contradictory to mine, and yet I am content to leave them alone. I cannot adequately explain to you why it is not so for me vis a vis religious believers of every kind, but most particularly the evangelical sort. I feel - and I want to acknowledge that this is a personal feeling, one I’m not prepared to support with argument - I feel that religion is not merely wrong but that it is dangerous. Dangerous in the way that it is dangerous for any of us to live in or under mythologies.

I also feel that religious folk are among the worst for further dividing the world into Us and Them. Witness, if in no other way, the concept that only certain of us will go to Heaven. Now, I do not believe in an afterlife but I sometimes feel that this projection of my non-entrance to heaven is tantamount to wishing me in Hell - and in the present!