Chukka

I don't blame people for their beliefs, if the beliefs are sane. Would you say the same thing to me if I told a member of a suicidal cult that he was an asshole/retard if he said that he "believed" in his cult/version of "truth"? Would you actually let that man, without having to hear your arguments, go ahead and commit suicide AND spread his ideas? I don't think so. Christianity has some good ideas, and for those I don't blame them; I'm cool with non-violence thoughts and so on. But when they openly state that non-believers are going to a place of eternal pain and agony, and that they do so simply for choosing the "wrong truth", I get upset. What kind of person could ever seriously say that about a total stranger/a nice non-believing neighbor? Hey, I like you, but you're going to hell you know, just wanted to let you know. WTF is that about? It's torture, especially to kids. Imagine having a friend at school who's not christian, who becomes the victim of a car-accident? What if that person dies? Then he/she's going to go to hell. Because of what? Because of that persons parnts/upbringing. I was religious before, but I never believed in hell or any such place. It's just bizarre. How can a god who's supposed to love everybody end up sending them to the mother of all nightmares? No, I don't buy it. I don't buy any of it.

And about that choice stuff; of course you have a choice. You can choose to not accept some things written in a book by some guy in a monastery some 1400 years ago. You can reject the very disgusting idea about hell, and still be a christian.

 

Wolfsbane why are you so offended by someone else's beliefs if you don't believe them yourself? It's not like them believing it is going to make it any more true. Grow a little backbone. If someone came up to me and asked "Do you believe in God?", and after me telling them "No" they then said "Well you're going to Hell then," I'd just be like "Oh gee I guess it sucks to be me then."
I've had these discussions before with people and after walking away, I've already forgotten their name, what their opinion even was, and the fact that I even spoke one word to them. It's just not worth getting worked up over something you can't control to begin with (their beliefs...not the fact that you're going to Hell).

If someone wants to committ suicide as part of their beliefs, fine. I think it's retarded but I like the idea of less and less retarded people in the world for me to trip over every day.

 

@Grimmhatter: Why am I so upset about this? I'm not upset about Japes telling me that he believes I'll go to hell when I die. What upsets me is that he somehow can accept a "truth" where a god, who's supposed to love everything, sends people to eternal pain for crimes which they might not even understand. A reality where you are allowed to put that horrible fear into the minds of children; unless your friends convert, they're going to burn i hell - forever - when they die. Imagine the horror. Hell is not about worldly agony - it's pain beyond measure. The mother of pain. The ultimate punishment. How can you not choose to reject such an idea of life? The fact that people doesn't, that's what upsets me.

@DE: Try to tell that to the Swedish "christian" masses. If I went with that idea, though, I'd say "fuck christianity in total, it's evil".

 

I would recommend "the God delusion" by Richard Dawkins to everyone here.

And Wolfsbane, you do have a very angry tone.

 

Ah, Jesus. The person who supposedly ridd us of Adam's sins. Then again, why do the church still claim that we still have them (the sins, that is). Some christians claims only to believe in the new testament, but how can they be serious about such bullshit? Oh, Jesus was a nice guy, turning his friends into goats as a child (metaphore, please). And the fact that the different acolyte's versions differ, and is historically incorrect, doesn't matter, no?

EDIT

@Wobbler: Yes. Point being?

 

So, wolf, what you're saying is because you don't believe it and it's not very nice, means that it offends you that other people believe it?

I'm not going to try to rationalize to you about this, frankly there's very little rational in religious discussions. You either believe it or you don't. You don't believe it, that's fine, but if you get upset over every person who does believe, if you let every person who wholeheartedly believes in hell get to you, the only truth that will be of consequence to you is that your life will be very troubling.

The Christian faith is fragmented, there are many versions of that 'truth'. A great many have a Hell concept. Some hardcore 'Christians' still believe black people are inferior to whites. Radical Muslims believe that God is best served through death and fire, and that everyone who doesn't praise Allah and reject the west is doomed for Hell. The Norse believe that your worthiness to enter Heaven is based solely on your ability to drink, stab things, and write long-winded lyrical poetry, typically inspired by the first two criteria.

That said, truly the most pitiful personal philosophy would be the one that turns this life into Hell because it can't accept that other people are not always of such a compassionate mind. If you are truly gained some sliver of wisdom; enough to see past the hypocritical philosophy that would damn a man to divine punishment for a mortal sin, then proclaim love for that man, then do yourself a favor: gain a sliver more and realize that not all men are wise in any significant way.

 

Well, hypothetically speaking, it's been...what....2008 years since God has openly communicated with any of us. So alot of these religious contradictions are mere speculation/interpretation falacies brought on by hundreds of years of biblical analysis. One faction (call it Christianity) thinks and does one thing and another faction (call it...Catholisism) thinks and does the opposite because they don't agree that what's in the Bible is what God and all those writers truely meant. Being of the atheist mindset that I am, I don't really believe that religions are abound to give us hope, faith, or any kind of worldly balance. I don't think they're around as a beacon through which to worship any god(s). I'm convinced they are just another form of mind control for a power hungry organization to exert its dominance over the populace that comprises it. Throughout my religiously influenced childhood (I was raised by a heavily Catholic father and just as heavily Christian mother), I've found nothing but inconsitencies, lies, and exagerations. I get enough of that from my own government. I think religions (all religions, not just Christianity, Catholosism, etc...) are a waste of time, money, and mental integrity. So that's why when someone tells me I'm going to Hell for not believing in God, I laugh in their face. But I won't discourage them from thinking or preaching it. It's not my place.

Maybe somewhere down the line I'll experience something that makes me change my outlook, but for now, it's not gonna happen.

 

Wow, I get stuck on another island for a day (due to engine malfunction) and I miss a whole religeon debate.

Wolfsbane, I don't know who explained Christianity to you, but they obviously were not gentle about it, nor did they explain it very well.

 

I would. Pardon me for sounding like a complete ass, but I think that, if he's so devote that he believes that suicide is the proper route to enlightenment for him, then superb. Get him outta the damn gene pool.


Personally, I belive that there is something out there more powerful than us. What it is, I don't've a clue. I'm taking the Taoist route, and focusing on enlightenment and peace of mind. If I wind up in Hell, then, well, I've all of eternity to remedy that error. I aim to live life as fully as I can, without sacrificing my morals or beliefs. I am anti-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, and anti-Hillary Clinton. Now that I've chipped in my two cents (without even bothering to read the more recent posts, like always! :lol: )

Japes, I wouldn't worry terribly about what you missed: most of it was Wolfbane angsting against Christianity. My only comment to you would be to ask that you don't hold someone's faith against them, no matter what it is. I don't think you're terribly extreme, as far as Christians go, but I've seen many who consider everyone who'sn't their sect of Christianity to be vile vile creatures. I'd hate to see one more.

 

To me it seems kind of unnessecary.

 

Another fallacy is that Christianity and Catholocism are different things. You wouldn't say Sunni and Shiite are different religions, they're different branches of one religion, and, to be truthful, the differences between Protestantism, Catholocism, and Greek Orthodox are far less distinct than the differences between Sunni and Shiite Moslems.

Grimm, many of the mentally 'adept' (for lack of a better word) often have a problem with accepting a religion, with predicates on the acceptance of something without question. To question, indeed, is blasphemy (literal definition if I'm not mistaken). You are correct, that encouraging people to not think and to have a sense of oneness amongst a population is, as Marx put it, the opiate of the masses, but do you really think it's intentional? All people, when content, don't want to rebel. Firstly, what, in your opinion, is inherently wrong with being content with that which you don't understand? And second, if you are content, what is inherently wrong with striving to remain so, meaning NOT striving to change the social dynamic?

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate, but I would just like to see if you are as forthright and eloquent in defending your own views as you are in attacking your opposition's, because, with no implication of insult intended, I find it is far easier to be a detractor than a debator.

I think DE's idea seems best; everyone calm down, and if you're really interested in debating about religion we can do so rationally, instead of the unyielding and unproductive verbal sparring that only leads to animosity and discord.

Oh, and DE, I'm a Buddhist Christian (Methodist), so I guess I'm like the revised equivalent of your faith.

 

I saw now that the post wasn't intended for me, so I'll let Grimm answer that. I'll post my views on religion (I'll be gentle, I promise) today or tomowwor.

 

You're right about it being easier to be a detractor than a debator. I was actually hesitant to contribute that last post since the opinion I had was not just the result of a youth of Sunday after Sunday or Catholic and Christian church, Monday after Monday night of CCD (think "sunday school" for public school kids), and an Early Church History course my senior year of college that I'm a bit hazy on. It's one of those cases where the inner, gut feeling strangely can't be ignored but specific examples are unrecallable. Wolfsbane's initial argument is one of my earliest confusions of religion....about how a god (and its religion) exists that values all life as holy and stresses the importance of peace and prosparity, but then turns a complete 180 and also says "by the way, if you don't believe/agree/conform to this, you'll suffer an eternity of fiery damnation after your death." Working off this, I can't really even say God was a hypocrit, because he was rather cynical in the Old Testament, turning people to pillars of salt and literally eradicating 99% of life from the face of the planet with a huge deluge. That doesn't exactly scream "respect for life" to me. I understand why though. The world had become corrupt and I think this was his way of wiping the slate clean. But then in the New Testament, he almost completely drops his iron fist act for a more enlightened, peaceful one and sends the physical manifestation of himself in the form of a "son". This act was considered God's final intervention on behalf of Man to wash away all sins and "open the Gates of Heaven."

Now here's where I try to tie it all together. In this course I mentioned before, we were taught that the Bible is considered God's Word. It is a collection of scriptures bound together to spread the word of Christianity to people after the death of Jesus and a source to learn from. It isn't actually a book of quotes God told some scribe to write down on a rainy day. It is the opinions and ideas of the people most influenced by Jesus and by the concept of Christianity. Since the crucifixion and resurrection, there are no more tales of God or Jesus interacting with anyone. So, there is no one to directly confirm or contradict that what is in the Bible is what God intended us to do and believe. Christianity finally became the most prominent religion throughout the known world within 100 years, and with this new rise to power came the urge to make official the interpretations of the lessons in the Bible. This is where my recollection gets hazy. To further verify concrete interpretations of what the Scriptures were preaching, several "Councils" (i.e. Council of Nicea) were held to make official what a handful of old men took them to mean. Some topics covered were: Was Jesus an actual person or was he actually God in the flesh? Is God really the omnipotent being he/she/it appears to be. Is God a he, a she, or an it? That only specific people, priests, are benevolent enough to speak with God and thus we must confess our sins to God through them as a beakon of communication. And my favorite, God is all knowing, and is the perfect being. Everything that happens in life is because he willed it. And he is infallable, he is never wrong. That is why he never interacts with us today. His act of sending his only Son to die for us on the Cross was his ultimate gift of salvation to mankind. Any further interference with our lives and worldly events would mean that his intervention of the Crucifixion did not work, and that he therefore was wrong to do it. Now my argument is this: didn't the world already go through one godly act to rid the world of evil and corruption...the Great Flood from the Old Testament. Isn't his will of forcing Jesus to become crucified basically saying "Yeah about that first try....didn't really work out. My bad." Just another of the quirks of religion that drives me further and further away. More follows...

...After various titles and branches were established to gain a firm foundation from one country to the next (i.e. Bishops, Cardinals, The Pope), disagreements and corruption began to arize within the ranks of the religion. Extreme views came into play that lead to the very thing Christianity opposed: war. There were actually several different "Crusades," one very gruesome one being something along the lines of The Children's Crusade. Basically after the first two Crusades ("holy wars") failed, the Church decided to war must continue "in God's name" and thus they even started sending children to the slaughter. Now if a person's, or a group of people's, interpretations of what the Bible is trying to teach us can be so skewed that this is a potential result, shouldn't that throw into question every interpretation and resulting rule no matter how innocent or severe?

As far as my insistance towards the favor of truth over faith...that's attributed to what was covered above coupled with a long educational history of science as a face value, provable fact. Over the course of the history of civilization, phenomenae that were once credited to deities have since been proven by an application of science. I've soaked so much of this up over the years (possibly due to my emphasis in Genetics, Molecular Biology, and Immunology) that I even no longer think that we, as humans, have souls. I am convinced that were are nothing more than biological AI. Our consciousness is the result of a series of chemical reactions occuring in our bodies to such a sophisticated degree, that we are able to perceive our realities to an extent no other living thing on this planet can. Our perception of the world and its surroundings is from the transportation of stimulus after stimulus traveling from the point of observation (olfactory senses, audible senses, taste...etc) through a network of nerves to our brain for mental translation, and then back to the point of origin for the physical equivalent. As a result, we can achieve much more complex levels of thought and understanding to an extent that we even question the purpose of our own existence. And when we find no reliable confirmation as to why we're here, or why there is no way possible to stop the fact that one day we will all die, we become afraid of the void that stares back at us. And so, gods and their religions were invented to alleviate that fear. And along the way, some of us became greedy and fed off this fear by using religion as a weapon to line their own pockets with material possessions, status, and control over the weaker minded in an attempt to stem the pain of pointless living.

I hope I was able to make my opinion somewhat clear. Like I said, it's one that was formed years ago and only really exists as a kind of fog in my mind now. If you've managed to read through this entire post to this point, shit you need a life.