Christian Adoption

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You might contemplate whether or not belief in a God would improve your life. It is worth remembering that religion does not exist to be served by Man but religion exists to serve Man.

Ah ok, I think I am beginning to understand your point of view. As well as being very separate from other religions, you have little interest in the truth.

 

Essentially, you propose the idea of drumming up anything (or maybe some overseer or superior being) in my imagination in order to add something positive to my life. I could do that, but then I would know that such a thing was just a product of my fantasy - like having an imaginary friend. It would make me wonder whether I really needed such a thing and whether it was healthy. Would it not be more beneficial to be more realistic about my world and work from there?

 

In ancient times a people would believe in a God only for so long as that belief was perceived to work for them - once the God started to let them down it was dumped and a new God chosen - until the next time. Religion is (or should be) actually a very pragmatic business and will therefore change with passing time.

Except that the Abrahamic religions are far more dogmatic than the religions of Ancient Egypt (Amen-Ra or the inclusion of Canaanite Gods in the Egyptian pantheon) for example. There is far less leeway involved in these religions when there is one entity who is associated with one tome of scripture where its teaching lie.

 

And the Christian God, for example, is one where believe truly belief and often state they know it is exists. They have an idea as its character and purpose that share many (though not all) similarities with other believers. It may come to a stage where everyone has their own very personal idea of a God that it completely the result of their own interests and needs.

[Evil Goblin]

Ah ok, I think I am beginning to understand your point of view. As well as being very separate from other religions, you have little interest in the truth.

I don't think you do understand my point of view - you are blinkered by the view that there is only one valid criterion for judging the whole of human experience - the scientific one. Do you understand the true purpose of a religion (as opposed to the misuses to which it has been put over time). I have every interest in the truth of our experience, insofar as any truth may exist. After all, what is truth?

 

Essentially, you propose the idea of drumming up anything (or maybe some overseer or superior being) in my imagination in order to add something positive to my life.

I propose nothing - I merely suggest that you contemplate the possibility. Such contemplation might, irrespective of whether or not you can believe in a God, lead you to an understanding of why so many people are happy to believe and why their point of view is worthy of respect.

 

Except that the Abrahamic religions are far more dogmatic than the religions of Ancient Egypt (Amen-Ra or the inclusion of Canaanite Gods in the Egyptian pantheon) for example. There is far less leeway involved in these religions when there is one entity who is associated with one tome of scripture where its teaching lie.

I was speaking of religion generally, not any specific one or sect within a particular religion.

 

It may come to a stage where everyone has their own very personal idea of a God that it completely the result of their own interests and needs.

Quite right, although most people will come to share common ground in many respects.

[Evil Goblin]

Why so much interest when you have only the Bible and parts of other scriptures to rely upon? What you have is some evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus and very little for his divinity. How can your beliefs on the divinity of such a person in the face of such scant evidence?

You are making unwarranted assumptions - why do you assume that I believe in the divinity of Jesus (or, for that matter, the physical resurrection) - even the first Christians such as Paul didn't believe that - see 1 Corinthians Ch. 15. As for the reality of Jesus - we have been over this ground before on another thread and it is clear that He did exist and taught in Israel for an 18 month period sometime between c29AD and c33AD, and was crucified by the Roman power. Evidence relating to Jesus comes not only from canonical works but from non-canonical works, so-called heretical books (e.g. from the Nag Hammadi library), Jewish literature and, to a much lesser extent, from Roman records.

 

But even so, if I consider the stupid ideas that have entered my mind out and were taken as fact when I was a child, I had the belief in a God, heaven and hell. Just as heaven was considered to exist, so was hell. Fair enough, my (better) moral judgement concluded that hell was far less likely for me because I cannot be really that bad that I'd end up there. But the idea used to spring up in my mind as to the possibilities.

Nothing exceptional about your experience - likely very common.

 

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I was led to believe, from what little I have read and heard from others).

As per John, rejecting Jesus and the Holy Spirit still leaves appeal to God, who is the one who forgives (Jesus and the Spirit acting as his proxies). Reject God and you remove from yourself the possibility of forgiveness. The nature of forgiveness is complex and would deserve a thread of its own.

 

This is the problem, because it is laughable that the Christian God can be taken seriously at all, for those who do believe it exists, when he must surely be guilty of gross stupidity in the poor communication of his message. Anyone with a little bit more thought to planning would have been able to drum up a better way to make sure that his most loved creations could at least have a good ability of sticking to 'right' way. He hasn't done us any favours whatsoever.

That may be your point of view but many millions do not share it. Perhaps if you understood the purpose of religion you would understand their point of view.

[Evil Goblin]

I do think that Christianity should be tolerated in many examples of its role in society. It afforded respect, in fact, all religions are given respect when the deserve none at all. On the basis of the lack of evidence behind their claims, I cannot and nor should anyone offer the beliefs a high opinion. To do that would be to have a high opinion of credulousness. Credulousness should not be praised.

I agree that too many people confuse the areas where science and religions belong and this is a cause of much trouble. It is not necessarily a matter of being credulous - religion is invented by Man to serve his needs and purposes. If a particular set of beliefs assists someone with their lives, what is wrong with that? What you may think of their beliefs is irrelevant (save where you and like thinkers choose to persecute them for their beliefs).

 

I have no reason to believe on the basis of a lack of any evidence. Science is the best tool we have for determining what is true and what is not. But theists have been unable to provide any good evidence.

You are confusing those questions which are properly asked of science and not religion, and vice versa.

 

not a right, no more than not believing in Manx little people, bugganes, Baba Yaga, or Cthulu is a right.

A strange comment - if it is not your right what is?

 

Absolutely, theists believe because of Faith. Faith simply means without good reason behind the belief. That's why it is irrational. Aside from this though, they have the belief that something exists because they think it's manifestations are the result of everything or many many things going on in the world and universe. Isn't the oft-used phrase, "Just look at the trees and nature"? This is what I mean, because although they can say that think this is evidence of its manifestation, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and criticism. Ultimately, they cannot demonstrate that this existence on the basis of evidence. And for that reason there is no good to hold the belief.

You are again assuming that all of human experience is subject to scientific evaluation. Parts of it are not.

 

The role of science is to determine what is true or is not. I am accustomed to the argument that religion opens up another world of importance or equal importance than cannot be ignored, but I would be presumptious to continue without asking you for further explanation of how you see it.

Put it this way - if you want to know how and why the physical Universe behaves as it does, you ask Science because religion cannot provide a satisfactory explanation. If you are asking a question about how people should behave or what moral stances they should take, Science is not much help and the questions should be addressed to religion.

 

Aah, I see. I think you are getting confused about the term 'atheist' and not agnostic.

It is not me who is confused!

 

An atheist is something who does not BELIEVE in a God or the existence of Gods. On the basis that no evidence exists, judgement is reserved until that evidence is provided. That is the most sensible and rationa approach to take.

This sounds like a description of an agnostic, not an atheist. An true atheist would reject your second sentence as irrelevant.

 

However, there is strong atheism. I am, for instance, a strong atheism in respect of the Christian God. That is because the definitions put forth by Christians are so absurd, contradictory, and clearly a product of human thinking that I can say that the Christian God does NOT exist in the same way that fairies or leprechauns don't. This isn't quite gnostic, as I cannot be absolutely certain. But no more or less absolutely certain about pixies or leprechauns. Although people have been said to have seen this creatures.

What is not the product of human thinking? Even scientific theories are merely the product of human thinking. Your hedging ("I cannot be absolutely certain") indicates that you are really agnostic, not an atheist.

 

Ah right, so you have to believe to make it true - the poor argument for faith. Right, so, he only manifests to those given by God? And what are these manifestations? If he is not a figment of their imagination then what do they witness as a manifestation of God?

It also demands the question of what reason I would have to believe on the basis of this lack of evidence.

The Christian answer is that if you are not able to see then you are not given to Christ by God - the given accept Christ when they hear the Word. Also note that such acceptance of the Word may be rejected many times before, eventually, the hearer repents and does hear and so accepts Christ. Looks like the down elevator for you, LDV!

 

Your issue with my supposed lack of understanding seems to about you missing the obvious. It is quite obvious that someone who thinks their God can speak to them, influence them, creates their world etc., will recognise that God's role in their life. That would be the same with any God or Gods who have a similar role. BUT it still doesn't make it true. For someone could become convinced of the teachings of Scientology, with its tales of aliens, negative alien spirits inhabiting the body, etc. They might think that such stuff is true, but when taken on faith they have no ability to determine whether it is or not. And more importantly, have no good reason to think it is true on the basis of faith.

Yes, what you say about the effect of any God is true but as for making it true, I repeat an earlier and famous question - What is Truth? Again, it would justify a separate thread to discuss that epistemological question.

 

Really? I am of the opinion that you wish to make a separate case for your religion, presumably because it is your own but also because you think it is a separate matter due to the all-encompassing aspect of your God. I also presume that you think the Great Smelly Pig is a simply concept, but he need not be. I may claim that he created the universe, but decided to end his piggy ways and have no more interference in the processes of the universe. He may just have been a creator Pig. In such a way, why do you suppose a great gulf between your beliefs and this supposed one?

Yes, really. My God, whilst essentially unknowable, is not God in the conventional sense of the word. I believe that God is something within me and, as I am part of the Universe, God is also an aspect of it. I make no claim to know or understand that God, but He is not a being who does, or has ever, interfered directly in the affairs of Man, throwing thunderbolts around and the like. Like the Prophets, I believe that if He acts on earth then he acts through the activity of people. I accept that this is somewhat nebulous, but I think the nature of God (whoever or whatever it is) is necessarily so.

 

All I need to know, all that is needed, is that there is little to no evidence with which to form a rational belief in any God.

I can only repeat what I said about the roles of science and religion. You seem unable to understand the difference.

 

I recognise that you have studies for thirty years. You may have studies and learned well or badly. More importantly, your theological pursuits and their results - if the result is a belief is God, lends no more weight to your position of belief than an atheist who has far, far less understanding of the Bible or other religions when evidence for such beliefs are needed.

This is a bit rich given that you have no real idea of what I believe - also because you again display an overwhelming arrogance due to the over-riding faith (and I use that word deliberately) you have in the ability of science to answer all questions relating to human experience.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Firstly, before I go into this. I am mindful of the fact that your view of religion is quite different from those of others. In reference to your responses about evidence and truth, it appears that you are holding to a completely personal interpretation of things. However, the religions that have existed have always been based on shared truths, i.e. a shared character of a God, a shared understanding of who/what created the universe and how it was done, how man got on earth, why you shouldn't personally deny a God, etc. Presumably, from your responses, you do not hold to a truth outside of your mind. What is true can be anything your feel or think is the case.

 

I don't think you do understand my point of view - you are blinkered by the view that there is only one valid criterion for judging the whole of human experience - the scientific one.

I am not blinkered by a view that there is one valid criterion, but rather recognise that science is the only process we have (as yet) to determine whether things are true or not. A more accurate way may be found. But relying on testable theories is the best way we have to determine whether something is true or not. Faith is not a process for determining the truth. It's an idea that is stuck to regardless of evidence.

 

An evidence is important, because beliefs are our ideas about what is true or not. In almost all instances we have evidence behind our beliefs, except when it comes to religion for some reason.

 

Do you understand the true purpose of a religion (as opposed to the misuses to which it has been put over time).

I think to ask that question you are simplifying matters to a great degree. People come to have religious beliefs because they think they offer the best explanations for their existence, why they are as they are, and why the world is the way it is. Others find it comfortable/comforting to believe in a God because their life is not as they wish or because they think life would be better by having an overseer who has control over what is going on their life or is the cause of things. Others find comfort in knowing there is something after their death, for themselves and their relatives. Of course, religion also has the tendency to profilerate, because parents are irresponsible enough to introduce their children to these beliefs and essentially make the child treat them as true and thus believe. As they grow up they view their world in such a way that includes the role of this God. It's hard to shake off unless one is able to critically assess things. I certainly believe in respect of those who hold to more conventional Abrahamic beliefs (or possibly all) religions is that it is a product of a mind that has been developed or is prone to servile concepts. Where we may possibly be frightened of the idea of taking control of our lives or expect in certain ways to be led.

There is a mixture of reasons to believe.

 

However, although these reasons exist, they are all irrational. If someone could not behave in society or would go mad through not believing in a God then maybe it is better that they do indulge in fantasy. But for others, it is better to rid ourselves of irrational beliefs if we want to get anywhere in understanding our world and ourselves, and also to prevent people making decisions as a result of irrational thinking, as this can lead to problems.

I have every interest in the truth of our experience, insofar as any truth may exist. After all, what is truth?

Truth, I would suppose, is explained as being what know to be reality in our world. And this determination of truth is the result of using evidence.

 

I would presume you would disagree. But I think any other interpretation on the matter gets you into difficulty if you want to talk about a God role outside of your own mind.

 

I propose nothing - I merely suggest that you contemplate the possibility. Such contemplation might, irrespective of whether or not you can believe in a God, lead you to an understanding of why so many people are happy to believe and why their point of view is worthy of respect.

Contemplate? I used to believe in a God. It is difficult not to when you are brought up in a society where so many are of the woolly-minded opinion that something exists or something did/does it (the universe). And in a society where many are Christian, it is a quasi-Christian sort of God that springs to mind. It is only when introduced to ways of reasoning that one is able to understand the basis for my belief and thus come to disbelieve.

Although I completely recognise why people are happy to believe and why it is difficult for them to come not to believe, for many reasons.

 

But that doesn't mean I respect their beliefs and nor should it. If you mean respect in its proper sense of high opinion, then there is no good reason to offer respect. Like I have said. No more so than than having respect to old Manx beliefs about Little People. It's a sign of human mental weakness. A weakness we all share.

 

I was speaking of religion generally, not any specific one or sect within a particular religion.

But we haven't seen the degree of variation of variation with the Abrahamic religions as we can recognise with other ancient religions.

 

Quite right, although most people will come to share common ground in many respects.

Maybe. But their beliefs will be prone to questions of their veracity and subjected to the ridicule they deserve unless there is evidence behind them.

I disagree with the common ground you mention. You can see common ground in the branching of Christianity, even with those who have a personal God that doesn't common in a large degree to that of the Bible.

But in today's world you can see the trend of 'new age spiritualism', where people have pulled all different sort of ideas together from old religions, science (using the term 'energy'), and concepts of a spirit to form religions. This is a result of the legacy of religion and as a comfort blanket for people who want more from reality, can't handle reality, or just want answers now. And whilst they can hold their beliefs, there is no good reason for them to have them. We might as well dream up any old shit just a feel a bit better, but the result of that is to seriously get people off the track to knowing how our world/universe works.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

You are making unwarranted assumptions - why do you assume that I believe in the divinity of Jesus (or, for that matter, the physical resurrection) - even the first Christians such as Paul didn't believe that - see 1 Corinthians Ch. 15. As for the reality of Jesus - we have been over this ground before on another thread and it is clear that He did exist and taught in Israel for an 18 month period sometime between c29AD and c33AD, and was crucified by the Roman power. Evidence relating to Jesus comes not only from canonical works but from non-canonical works, so-called heretical books (e.g. from the Nag Hammadi library), Jewish literature and, to a much lesser extent, from Roman records

Please don't be offended. I was of the assumption that you would have to consider Jesus divine to be of any Christian-related faith. Do your beliefs conform more with Judaaism, or are they very much your own interpretation?

 

As for the existence of Jesus, I am not convinced he existed. As for as I am aware, Jewish literature was produced after he was said to exist, unless that is bogus. I don't know about this library, however. And I am unaware of any Roman records - Josephus can't be considered with much seriousness. But...I am inclined to think he probably did exist.

 

Nothing exceptional about your experience - likely very common.

Yes, very common conclusions about hell that result from my moral thinking.

 

As per John, rejecting Jesus and the Holy Spirit still leaves appeal to God, who is the one who forgives (Jesus and the Spirit acting as his proxies). Reject God and you remove from yourself the possibility of forgiveness. The nature of forgiveness is complex and would deserve a thread of its own.

Right, so in a sense if you reject God then you cannot be forgiven? Although, I have read that God's forgiveness is not limited by the human sins. The writers did make it all very contradictory.

 

That may be your point of view but many millions do not share it. Perhaps if you understood the purpose of religion you would understand their point of view.

Surely millions don't. And it's quite amazing. But largely a product of indoctrination, ignorance of science, and inability to reason. But the fact remains that there is a serious problem with God's supposedly coherent message when Christianity has resulted from Judaaism, Christianity has so many 'schism's, and when people have often to the idea of having a personal Christianity-related God. For the pentecostalist or methodist, their way of understanding and following God is the correct way.

[newsnight]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

 

Religious mania in all its various degrees and manifestations, on the other hand does.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I agree that too many people confuse the areas where science and religions belong and this is a cause of much trouble. It is not necessarily a matter of being credulous - religion is invented by Man to serve his needs and purposes. If a particular set of beliefs assists someone with their lives, what is wrong with that? What you may think of their beliefs is irrelevant (save where you and like thinkers choose to persecute them for their beliefs).

I agree that religion was invented to serve needs and purposes. However, I do not agree that exists to the degree it does as a result of this. I think you recognise that the extent to which people have such beliefs is a result of indoctrination and sheer ignorance of science. We are not in Palestine 2000 years ago living a rather short and brutal life with far less understanding of how the world works as now.

 

Now it is very complicated matter to discuss the issue of people having religion today because of needs because it is not all that clear to whom it applies. Who does really need to have religion? I would argue that it is not about need, but rather a comfort blanket that is employed, but the manner in which the concepts is formed is another complicated matter.

 

But what are the costs of such beliefs? Well, it is potentially risky business making decisions that has come from a mind that thinks and has emotions as a result of irrational beliefs. Will I make the most of my life whilst alive or just try and eke out things until I reach this other place? Will I be the best person I can or as good as I can be in this life or will it not matter if I go to another place (and can be forgiven before I go)? Do I deal with the problems in my life right now or pray to a God to help me a little? Do I build up my self esteem by recognising the achievements in my life or give some or all credit to a God?

 

You think my arguments and ridicule constitues persecution? No, I have an interest in wanting to be around people who can reason properly, so we can have a shared interest in the truth, when it comes to matters of our existence and the world we live in. Without such shared truth we would all be lost.

 

You are confusing those questions which are properly asked of science and not religion, and vice versa.

But again, I have to ask whether you have an interest in the truth, because religious claims often relate to the real world.

 

A strange comment - if it is not your right what is?

A right is something that is granted. I am just saying it is my choice, just as it is your choice to belief.

 

You are again assuming that all of human experience is subject to scientific evaluation. Parts of it are not.

Ok, what parts? You refer to human experience, but this is a far, far more limited aspect of common religious beliefs than what exists in society.

If you talking about explanations of how you feel, then even then we could do tests to see if someone having troublesome bowel movements or a vertigo which are causing an experience rather than divine visitation. But certainly where assertions are put forth about our existence we enter an area where scientific evaluation has a role. And it has had a very great role in determining many things. I don't think it has the answer to everything and some areas of its inquiry sas

 

Put it this way - if you want to know how and why the physical Universe behaves as it does, you ask Science because religion cannot provide a satisfactory explanation. If you are asking a question about how people should behave or what moral stances they should take, Science is not much help and the questions should be addressed to religion.

No, not religion. Not science either.

 

This sounds like a description of an agnostic, not an atheist. An true atheist would reject your second sentence as irrelevant.

 

What is not the product of human thinking? Even scientific theories are merely the product of human thinking. Your hedging ("I cannot be absolutely certain") indicates that you are really agnostic, not an atheist.

I don't want to be rude. But I really think you should look up the definitions of the terms and how they are used.

 

Atheist - disbelief in a theist claim. The default position. In the same way that I disbelief in a God, I disbelieve the claims of those who think aliens have landed on Earth, or that ghosts are real. It is NOT a claim to KNOW that someone does not exist. Although many think this is what atheism means.

 

Agnostic - is a position on knowledge, not belief. To term oneself as an agnostic is to refer to a different subject than belief.

 

Gnostic theist - knows for certain that a said God exists and thus believes in that God.

Agnostic theist - doesn't not know whether a God exists, but believe in that God. (This is what is commonly confused as being just agnosticism)

Gnostic atheist/strong atheism - knows a God or any God doesn't exist and of course does not believe

Agnostic atheism - does not know whether they exists and does not believe.

 

I am an agnostic atheist in respect of generic God claims. In respect of the Christian God, I am a gnostic atheist. Although, as said, the purposes of using the term 'know' in any useful sense, I can say I know I am that he doesn't exist.

 

The Christian answer is that if you are not able to see then you are not given to Christ by God - the given accept Christ when they hear the Word. Also note that such acceptance of the Word may be rejected many times before, eventually, the hearer repents and does hear and so accepts Christ. Looks like the down elevator for you, LDV!

Do you not recognise why this is the Christian answer?

 

Your issue with my supposed lack of understanding seems to about you missing the obvious. It is quite obvious that someone who thinks their God can speak to them, influence them, creates their world etc., will recognise that God's role in their life. That would be the same with any God or Gods who have a similar role. BUT it still doesn't make it true. For someone could become convinced of the teachings of Scientology, with its tales of aliens, negative alien spirits inhabiting the body, etc. They might think that such stuff is true, but when taken on faith they have no ability to determine whether it is or not. And more importantly, have no good reason to think it is true on the basis of faith.

Yes, what you say about the effect of any God is true but as for making it true, I repeat an earlier and famous question - What is Truth? Again, it would justify a separate thread to discuss that epistemological question.

...and whether we should be treating delusional schizophrenics if I am to presume your understanding of truth.

 

Yes, really. My God, whilst essentially unknowable, is not God in the conventional sense of the word. I believe that God is something within me and, as I am part of the Universe, God is also an aspect of it. I make no claim to know or understand that God, but He is not a being who does, or has ever, interfered directly in the affairs of Man, throwing thunderbolts around and the like. Like the Prophets, I believe that if He acts on earth then he acts through the activity of people. I accept that this is somewhat nebulous, but I think the nature of God (whoever or whatever it is) is necessarily so.

You're a panentheist from the sounds of things. If you don't mind me pigeon-holding your type of belief. But this draws back to the matter of evidence.

 

Because such claims are not limited to the subject of your mind in the sense that you are making claims about the real world that we share. If it's true that this intelligence operates in the world, then it is true for me and you. But if you believe in an intelligence that is the part of the universe, is the universe, or the universe is part of it, then what is the evidence that draws you to this conclusion? Or have you taken a guess, because you claim to know nothing or little about this God and without knowledge, I then have to ask why you have come to believe?

 

This is a bit rich given that you have no real idea of what I believe - also because you again display an overwhelming arrogance due to the over-riding faith (and I use that word deliberately) you have in the ability of science to answer all questions relating to human experience.

I do not faith it can answer all questions nor all questions regarding human experience, just that it can provide answers to the truth of the world we live in, but you think it is respectable and useful for people to provide their own answers without any good reason behind those particular answers whatsoever, just dream up what they will they make themselves feel better. Is that not right?

[midnight]

 

As for the existence of Jesus, I am not convinced he existed.

 

 

 

Just a quick post be before I have to go.

 

You all seem quite interested in the subject of religion!

 

Not sure if anyone has heard of or read the following book?

 

“Science and health with the key to the scriptures” by mary baker eddy?

 

“Science and health with the key to the scriptures” by mary baker eddy Science and Health posits a wholly metaphysical view of Christianity in which sin, disease, and death are not of God, and are therefore not real. Further, it suggests that by striving toward a spiritual understanding of the world as God's perfect creation, these "false beliefs" are shed from one's experience.

 

The book has three sections. The main section, which makes up the bulk of the book, comprises the first 500 pages. The second section, "Key to the Scriptures", examines parts of Genesis and Revelation and provides a Glossary of Eddy's metaphysical interpretations of commonly-used terms from the Bible. The final section, the last 100 pages, are testimonies of people who claim to have "been reformed and healed through the perusal or study of (the) book" (Eddy, 1934 : p. 600:4-5).

The titles of the chapters are:

1. Prayer

2. Atonement and Eucharist

3. Marriage

4. Christian Science versus Spiritualism

5. Animal Magnetism Unmasked

6. Science, Theology, Medicine

7. Physiology

8. Footsteps of Truth

9. Creation

10. Science of Being

11. Some Objections Answered

12. Christian Science Practice

13. Teaching Christian Science

14. Recapitulation

15. Genesis

16. The Apocalypse

17. Glossary

18. Fruitage

 

Its one of the best selling books off all time, and not without reason!

 

I KNOW after experiencing this book that Jesus did and does exist!

 

Jesus stood in the light and came to heal the sick and forgive us of our our sins ect ect.

Theres a section in the book were it tells of unimagimable pain and suffering that jesus suffered that no mortal man cud ever imagine as he was forced to carry the cross and was nailed to it to die.

But he was surrounded by angels of light and he defied death and he came back!!!!!!!!

 

The book contains the TRUTH imho, I honestly cant recommend it highly enough to anyone who wants to learn the truth!

 

I feel within this book you may well find the answers that you seek!!!

[Terse]

I'd go with Mark Twain who, in his book 'Christian Science,' described Mary Baker Eddy as "the queen of frauds and hypocrites."

[midnight]

I'd go with Mark Twain who, in his book 'Christian Science,' described Mary Baker Eddy as "the queen of frauds and hypocrites."

 

Hello terse!

 

I thought id just pop on to the forums before I have to go out.

 

Im not sure id trust the words of an author who believes that darker coloured skinned people are “NIGGERS” which he reffers to them as in his many novels!

 

Having said that tho suppose nigger is just a slang term that originated from the word “negro” (black)

 

But nigger is quite an offensive word to darker colored people as it is commonly used as a dreadfull reminder to describe black slaves !

 

Black slaves? how utterly shameful people are!!!

[Mr. Sausages]

I'd go with Mark Twain who, in his book 'Christian Science,' described Mary Baker Eddy as "the queen of frauds and hypocrites."

 

Hello terse!

 

I thought id just pop on to the forums before I have to go out.

 

Im not sure id trust the words of an author who believes that darker coloured skinned people are “NIGGERS” which he reffers to them as in his many novels!

 

Having said that tho suppose nigger is just a slang term that originated from the word “negro” (black)

 

But nigger is quite an offensive word to darker colored people as it is commonly used as a dreadfull reminder to describe black slaves !

 

Black slaves? how utterly shameful people are!!!

 

I thought "nigger" meant "friend"???!!!!!!!!!!

[newsnight]

I'd go with Mark Twain who, in his book 'Christian Science,' described Mary Baker Eddy as "the queen of frauds and hypocrites."

 

Hello terse!

 

I thought id just pop on to the forums before I have to go out.

 

Im not sure id trust the words of an author who believes that darker coloured skinned people are “NIGGERS” which he reffers to them as in his many novels!

 

Having said that tho suppose nigger is just a slang term that originated from the word “negro” (black)

 

But nigger is quite an offensive word to darker colored people as it is commonly used as a dreadfull reminder to describe black slaves !

 

Black slaves? how utterly shameful people are!!!

 

 

Wicked child, that word is an invention of the devil! Go and sit on a spike at once.

[newsnight]

I'd go with Mark Twain who, in his book 'Christian Science,' described Mary Baker Eddy as "the queen of frauds and hypocrites."

 

Hello terse!

 

I thought id just pop on to the forums before I have to go out.

 

Im not sure id trust the words of an author who believes that darker coloured skinned people are “NIGGERS” which he reffers to them as in his many novels!

 

Having said that tho suppose nigger is just a slang term that originated from the word “negro” (black)

 

But nigger is quite an offensive word to darker colored people as it is commonly used as a dreadfull reminder to describe black slaves !

 

Black slaves? how utterly shameful people are!!!

 

 

Wicked child, that word is an invention of the devil! Go and sit on a spike at once.

[Chinahand]

Evil Goblin, your back and fro with LDV has taken up lots and lots of space, and to try to follow it is almost impossible. I do have a few comments.

 

You raise the issue of respect – and say Christian beliefs should be respected, whether you believe them or not. I have to say I’m troubled by that – Christians, as people are worthy of as much respect as anyone else, but I am not convinced their beliefs are. These should be subject to as much scrutiny as any other belief and if they are found to be lacking there is no more need to respect them than a belief in astrology or fairies. Do you think I should respect beliefs in talking donkeys, or a 6000 year old universe? Such ideas are absurd, and only the most dogmatic fundamentalists cleave to them.

 

You then say religion and science address different aspects of the human condition and each answers its own valid area of enquiry – I don’t really understand what this means? Honestly what do you think is religion’s valid area of enquiry? Do ethicists, and poets, and philosophers have no valid say? What added value does religion bring that these professions cannot. What are religions truths – honestly could you give me some. I don’t doubt science is helpless in many areas of life, and ethicists and poets and philosophers try their best, but are you really saying religion has a way of providing a superior truth to these efforts?

 

I’m fascinated by the Jefferson Bible – Jefferson claimed that by excising every mention of the supernatural from the New Testament you ended up with “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man”. I am not certain but I feel you have a similar faith in the “real” Christ hidden under centuries of Paulian and Catholic (amongst others) dogma.

 

Unfortunately I was extremely unimpressed with the result, because even with the removal of all the turning water into wine mumbo jumbo you were still left with a book obsessed with judgement, the afterlife and heaven and hell. You can attempt to apply this eschatology to mundane life and ethics, but simply that is difficult – I don’t find the idea of selling all my worldly goods and looking how the Lord looks after the birds of the air a particularly helpful guide to life in a modern society, and Jesus’ all or nothing rhetoric about hate and cutting of hands etc is plain confusing.

 

I also find your optimism that there is a true good kernel for religion troubling. Again I ask what do you think this kernel is? How does it escape the ethicist, or philosopher? The spread of beliefs, and their mutations, are highly complex, and dogma and especially self interest can mean beliefs are altered and maintained not for any original purpose, but due to the power those beliefs can provide.

 

I am very glad we live in an age which has had the advantage of the enlightenment and so has disarmed religion of much of its power – when it was unimpeded I view it as a claustrophobically stifling power.

 

If religion's only function is to warn humanity of the dangers of hubris, well that is well and good, but that is a very limited role, and one religion has no unique hold over. Religions have claimed far far wider powers and dominion, and would, I beleive wish to claim more if they were not held so in check by the Enlightenment's illumination.

 

What should religion's remit be? My view is revelation is a totally discredited way to gain insight on the world. A priest has nothing to add which a philosopher or a poet could say, and when they make truth claims about the world then only a scientist can verify them. The world is a diverse place, and religion will have a say simply due to the numbers who afford it respect. But in my view, too often that respect is not earned, and so religion has a louder voice than is wise. Let the philosophers have more of a say and more people will realize morality does not come from the authority of a priest or a reveled text.