Conversion to religion
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Smiler. said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Derek Smith said:
I think most non theists on here have no problem with the various religion followers doing their thing. You believe in one of the gods. I don't really care, in the same way as I'm not bothered by train spotters. However my beef, and that of a number of posters on here, is with the subsidies from my taxes that go to religions, the misogyny, the prejudice against those who follow different sexual lifestyles, the criminal way protection is denied to those who might be infected by various diseases, the fact that there are vicars in government, that they try and restrict my freedoms with their attempts to stop scientific endeavour as it breaks their rules. And my taxes, have I mentioned my taxes? I think it is worth repeating.
Have establishments accept the inferiority of women without apology gives credence to other oppressions.
Whilst I think you are demonstrably wrong in your belief of the supernatural, don't accuse me of wanting to stop your bells and smells. You do what you want. If you want to believe, or at least profess belief, that a cracker turns into human flesh, then go ahead. It really doesn't bother me.
You suggest that atheists criticise your lifestyle and tell you how to live your life. Irony is big with you. Religions still restrict my choices and I don't like it.
Indeed, you criticise others for your own faults. Stay out of my life is all I ask of the religions. Staying out of my life means don't demean women, don't accuse people who don't follow your sexual mores of doing something wrong, don't take my taxes, don't tell lies to those who live in AIDS areas. And some other stuff I will have mentioned before. You personally are entitled to your own moral beliefs, as indeed am I, but atheists, for all the posters and buses, don't have massive, well-funded organisations putting pressure on the rest of us. If you don't like the posters, don't look. I wish turning a blind eye to the religious infringements of my liberties and beliefs could solve the problem so easily.
I don't mind you being out of step with logic. That's fine with me. However, I don't like wild unevidenced accusations - if your tirade was aimed at me, they normally seem to be but you carefully didn't name names so I'll answer for others until you remedy that error - but that's freedom of speech and I'll accept it as long as I have a right of reply.
You do your thing. I won't try and stop you. But if you post on here you should accept that belief in any religion is rather odd given the overwhelming evidence against the supernatural. People are likely to comment.
Absolutely spot on. Have establishments accept the inferiority of women without apology gives credence to other oppressions.
Whilst I think you are demonstrably wrong in your belief of the supernatural, don't accuse me of wanting to stop your bells and smells. You do what you want. If you want to believe, or at least profess belief, that a cracker turns into human flesh, then go ahead. It really doesn't bother me.
You suggest that atheists criticise your lifestyle and tell you how to live your life. Irony is big with you. Religions still restrict my choices and I don't like it.
Indeed, you criticise others for your own faults. Stay out of my life is all I ask of the religions. Staying out of my life means don't demean women, don't accuse people who don't follow your sexual mores of doing something wrong, don't take my taxes, don't tell lies to those who live in AIDS areas. And some other stuff I will have mentioned before. You personally are entitled to your own moral beliefs, as indeed am I, but atheists, for all the posters and buses, don't have massive, well-funded organisations putting pressure on the rest of us. If you don't like the posters, don't look. I wish turning a blind eye to the religious infringements of my liberties and beliefs could solve the problem so easily.
I don't mind you being out of step with logic. That's fine with me. However, I don't like wild unevidenced accusations - if your tirade was aimed at me, they normally seem to be but you carefully didn't name names so I'll answer for others until you remedy that error - but that's freedom of speech and I'll accept it as long as I have a right of reply.
You do your thing. I won't try and stop you. But if you post on here you should accept that belief in any religion is rather odd given the overwhelming evidence against the supernatural. People are likely to comment.
We live in a democracy and it is quite likely that my taxes also go towards something I don't agree with. I have to suck it up.
Again, it's a trait of a certain type of person who wants to micro-manage where their taxes go, another pointer towards someone who is afraid of things outside their control or a control freak at worst. Brexit an example, again.
My problem isn't about rightful and constructive criticism of religion by reasonable people. It is more about those such as DS and ajd who want to level accusations at religious people in general and seem to project their own insecurities and neuroses onto others. For example, I have never said anyone is going to hell on here, I have never discriminated against women or homosexuals, I have never supported the crimes committed by some Catholic priests. There are millions of religious people who would also reject those accusations, yet some posters repeat the accusations again and again. I wonder when those posters might finally realise this problem is their own?
Again, it's a trait of a certain type of person who wants to micro-manage where their taxes go, another pointer towards someone who is afraid of things outside their control or a control freak at worst. Brexit an example, again.
My problem isn't about rightful and constructive criticism of religion by reasonable people. It is more about those such as DS and ajd who want to level accusations at religious people in general and seem to project their own insecurities and neuroses onto others. For example, I have never said anyone is going to hell on here, I have never discriminated against women or homosexuals, I have never supported the crimes committed by some Catholic priests. There are millions of religious people who would also reject those accusations, yet some posters repeat the accusations again and again. I wonder when those posters might finally realise this problem is their own?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Having an opinion on having to pay more tax than I should because religious organisations don't pay their fair share is not micromanaging where my taxes go. It's having an opinion on having to pay more tax than I should because religious organisations don't pay their fair share. Taxpayers get to voice their opinions. Perhaps it's the church who should stfu on social issues, given that they don't pay in the first place. anonymous said:
[redacted]
By supporting an organisation that does, you are part of the problem. TwigtheWonderkid said:
By supporting an organisation that does, you are part of the problem.
I do not support an organisation that does. That is the point.You are just as likely to support, follow, work for or invest in organisations that do bad things. Tell me who you have shares in and I'll find out what they do that's naughty so I can beat you up about it. Actually, no, ill find any company that does naughty things and I'll beat you up about it even if you don't have a stake there!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So you don't support the church? You give the impression you are quite an ardent supporter.Are you prepared to declare you disagree with their sexist and homophobic stances on issues - e.g. attempting to block gay marriage?
And since when did 2 wrongs make a right anyway?
All the (pretty repetitive) problems highlighted by all these religion-themed threads appear to be with the man-made offshoots of faith and appear to have nothing to do with faith itself of which there appears to be little or no understanding.
My faith - Christianity - basically means I am a follower of the teachings and attempted imitator of the life of Jesus who himself never used the term Christian/Christianity. It's a man made term for following Jesus/His teachings. It has nothing to do with homophobia and/or misogyny.
Jesus' teachings were aimed at revealing God to man. There are a plethora of man-made church organisations which between them have an enormous spectrum of rules, regulations and doctrines ranging from the obviously sensible to the plainly bizarre to the outright dangerous.
These have nothing to do with Jesus and Christianity. They are, quite literally, stuff folks have made up.
A master of distilling complex concepts into a nub understandable by the simplest of folk, Jesus was frequently asked for opinion on rule, doctrine and commandment. The distillation of commandment was that we should "love God and our neighbours as we love ourselves" Even that was further simplified by pointing out that we were loving God when we showed our love towards each other. John understood via Jesus that to love God was to obey God. But God's central precept of obedience was that we should love one another. Towards the end of his life Jesus re-emphasised this by telling his disciples that he wished to leave them but one commandment - 'love one another as I have loved you'. Not too heavy-minded is it? Hardly a rulebook with damnation as the alternative to learning and obeying.
As a Christian what I'm left with is therefore something very simple. I must obey the command to love my fellow humans. And there appears to be no exclusion on the grounds of sex or sexuality or race or creed etc. As a sinner (defined as disobedient to God i.e. not loving my neighbour as I love myself) I accept my shortfall in my ability to do this simplest of things. So I say and think and even sometimes do unkind and selfish things. At those times I put distance between myself and God. And conversely when I obey and act or speak or think in an unselfish and kind and considerate and loving manner I become closer to God. As a Christian I prefer proximity to distance so try to do more obeying than disobeying. A typical 'work in progress' as we Christians often refer to each other.
It probably follows, then, that as a Christian there's nothing for me (or any Christian) to gain and everything to lose by practising misogyny, homophobia, paedophilia etc. etc etc. They are all 'distancers'. Nor, as a Christian, am I likely to steal from you, hurt or even kill you, try to shag your wife, lie, or sit simmering with an unhealthy desire to possess what's yours. That wouldn't be very 'love thy neighbour' would it? Again, 'distancers' from God.
The stuff that gets cast up on these threads is referring to (apostate) professors and man made political - style organisations and their often anti-Christian doctrines and doings despite them declaring themselves Christian. Plus the negative stuff almost always refers to 'works' which is only half the Christian story. There are many non-Christian humans who by nature or practice are far more loving of their neighbours than genuine Christians are as evidenced by their words and deeds. But they haven't got the other ingredient that makes a Christian and brings the satisfaction of Christianity which is the faith.
Unfortunately these threads misconstrue faith and the whole concept of God and faith in God just as they misconstrue works. But that's another story.
Here endeth the First Lesson
My faith - Christianity - basically means I am a follower of the teachings and attempted imitator of the life of Jesus who himself never used the term Christian/Christianity. It's a man made term for following Jesus/His teachings. It has nothing to do with homophobia and/or misogyny.
Jesus' teachings were aimed at revealing God to man. There are a plethora of man-made church organisations which between them have an enormous spectrum of rules, regulations and doctrines ranging from the obviously sensible to the plainly bizarre to the outright dangerous.
These have nothing to do with Jesus and Christianity. They are, quite literally, stuff folks have made up.
A master of distilling complex concepts into a nub understandable by the simplest of folk, Jesus was frequently asked for opinion on rule, doctrine and commandment. The distillation of commandment was that we should "love God and our neighbours as we love ourselves" Even that was further simplified by pointing out that we were loving God when we showed our love towards each other. John understood via Jesus that to love God was to obey God. But God's central precept of obedience was that we should love one another. Towards the end of his life Jesus re-emphasised this by telling his disciples that he wished to leave them but one commandment - 'love one another as I have loved you'. Not too heavy-minded is it? Hardly a rulebook with damnation as the alternative to learning and obeying.
As a Christian what I'm left with is therefore something very simple. I must obey the command to love my fellow humans. And there appears to be no exclusion on the grounds of sex or sexuality or race or creed etc. As a sinner (defined as disobedient to God i.e. not loving my neighbour as I love myself) I accept my shortfall in my ability to do this simplest of things. So I say and think and even sometimes do unkind and selfish things. At those times I put distance between myself and God. And conversely when I obey and act or speak or think in an unselfish and kind and considerate and loving manner I become closer to God. As a Christian I prefer proximity to distance so try to do more obeying than disobeying. A typical 'work in progress' as we Christians often refer to each other.
It probably follows, then, that as a Christian there's nothing for me (or any Christian) to gain and everything to lose by practising misogyny, homophobia, paedophilia etc. etc etc. They are all 'distancers'. Nor, as a Christian, am I likely to steal from you, hurt or even kill you, try to shag your wife, lie, or sit simmering with an unhealthy desire to possess what's yours. That wouldn't be very 'love thy neighbour' would it? Again, 'distancers' from God.
The stuff that gets cast up on these threads is referring to (apostate) professors and man made political - style organisations and their often anti-Christian doctrines and doings despite them declaring themselves Christian. Plus the negative stuff almost always refers to 'works' which is only half the Christian story. There are many non-Christian humans who by nature or practice are far more loving of their neighbours than genuine Christians are as evidenced by their words and deeds. But they haven't got the other ingredient that makes a Christian and brings the satisfaction of Christianity which is the faith.
Unfortunately these threads misconstrue faith and the whole concept of God and faith in God just as they misconstrue works. But that's another story.
Here endeth the First Lesson
Edited by drainbrain on Friday 29th July 14:50
If humans didn't have faith to fight over, they would find something else.
For a lot of people, faith is just the excuse for their crimes. I have no doubt that if all faiths were banned tomorrow, within a few years there would be other reasons for fighting, colour of skin, country you were born in for example.
For a lot of people, faith is just the excuse for their crimes. I have no doubt that if all faiths were banned tomorrow, within a few years there would be other reasons for fighting, colour of skin, country you were born in for example.
drainbrain said:
My faith - Christianity - basically means I am a follower of the teachings and attempted imitator of the life of Jesus who himself never used the term Christian/Christianity. It's a man made term for following Jesus/His teachings. It has nothing to do with homophobia and/or misogyny.
Do you believe what Jesus said is accurately reported in the New Testament. If not, then where are you getting the teachings of Jesus from?If so, do you accept that on several occasions in the NT, Jesus says quite clearly that the NT does not replace the teachings of the OT, but adds to them. Jesus says the OT is the word of god. That's what Jesus teaches. (Matthew 5:17 for example)
So I'm not so sure his teaching have nothing to do with homophobia and misogyny. He seems to actively support them.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
drainbrain said:
My faith - Christianity - basically means I am a follower of the teachings and attempted imitator of the life of Jesus who himself never used the term Christian/Christianity. It's a man made term for following Jesus/His teachings. It has nothing to do with homophobia and/or misogyny.
Do you believe what Jesus said is accurately reported in the New Testament. If not, then where are you getting the teachings of Jesus from?If so, do you accept that on several occasions in the NT, Jesus says quite clearly that the NT does not replace the teachings of the OT, but adds to them. Jesus says the OT is the word of god. That's what Jesus teaches. (Matthew 5:17 for example)
So I'm not so sure his teaching have nothing to do with homophobia and misogyny. He seems to actively support them.
The penguins must be pretty special, it'd have taken them bloody years to waddle to the middle east...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Do you believe what Jesus said is accurately reported in the New Testament. If not, then where are you getting the teachings of Jesus from?
If so, do you accept that on several occasions in the NT, Jesus says quite clearly that the NT does not replace the teachings of the OT, but adds to them. Jesus says the OT is the word of god. That's what Jesus teaches. (Matthew 5:17 for example)
So I'm not so sure his teaching have nothing to do with homophobia and misogyny. He seems to actively support them.
Yes even allowing for the discrepancies and mistakes and alterations as translation follows translation I believe the essentials of the teachings are accurately reported. If so, do you accept that on several occasions in the NT, Jesus says quite clearly that the NT does not replace the teachings of the OT, but adds to them. Jesus says the OT is the word of god. That's what Jesus teaches. (Matthew 5:17 for example)
So I'm not so sure his teaching have nothing to do with homophobia and misogyny. He seems to actively support them.
Taking your example (Matthew 5:17) here is what Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". Where within the law (largely Moses) or prophesies (The Prophets) is misogyny or homophobia encouraged? What Jesus appears to be saying (in 5:17) is that the law and prophesies were a foreshadowing of what his presence brought into reality. For example, the ritual of sacrifice as a foreshadowing of the crucifixion - the sacrifice which fulfilled the need for sacrifice which thereafter was not required (because its need was fulfilled). TBH I can't even see any connection with support of misogyny/homophobia/ills of the world.
Blue Cat said:
If humans didn't have faith to fight over, they would find something else.
For a lot of people, faith is just the excuse for their crimes. I have no doubt that if all faiths were banned tomorrow, within a few years there would be other reasons for fighting, colour of skin, country you were born in for example.
No they don't fight over faith, because there is nothing to fight about in faith. They fight over details of something they have made up - often as a substitute for faith. For a lot of people, faith is just the excuse for their crimes. I have no doubt that if all faiths were banned tomorrow, within a few years there would be other reasons for fighting, colour of skin, country you were born in for example.
drainbrain said:
Yes even allowing for the discrepancies and mistakes and alterations as translation follows translation I believe the essentials of the teachings are accurately reported.
Taking your example (Matthew 5:17) here is what Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". Where within the law (largely Moses) or prophesies (The Prophets) is misogyny or homophobia encouraged? What Jesus appears to be saying (in 5:17) is that the law and prophesies were a foreshadowing of what his presence brought into reality. For example, the ritual of sacrifice as a foreshadowing of the crucifixion - the sacrifice which fulfilled the need for sacrifice which thereafter was not required (because its need was fulfilled). TBH I can't even see any connection with support of misogyny/homophobia/ills of the world.
I think followers will always read into it whatever they want to. Most people claim to follow a religion, whereas what they actually mean is that their chosen religion follows them. They have a world view, and bend their religion to match their perception. I could quote countless teaching of Jesus that are far from pleasant (see Matthew 10:34), only to be told the "what he actually means is fluffy kittens and chocolate drops.". Taking your example (Matthew 5:17) here is what Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". Where within the law (largely Moses) or prophesies (The Prophets) is misogyny or homophobia encouraged? What Jesus appears to be saying (in 5:17) is that the law and prophesies were a foreshadowing of what his presence brought into reality. For example, the ritual of sacrifice as a foreshadowing of the crucifixion - the sacrifice which fulfilled the need for sacrifice which thereafter was not required (because its need was fulfilled). TBH I can't even see any connection with support of misogyny/homophobia/ills of the world.
drainbrain said:
No they don't fight over faith, because there is nothing to fight about in faith. They fight over details of something they have made up - often as a substitute for faith.
As religious faith is all made up, where do you draw the line the made up faith and the made up faith substitute.It's a bit like launching a product called "I Can't Believe it's not Margarine".
drainbrain said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Do you believe what Jesus said is accurately reported in the New Testament. If not, then where are you getting the teachings of Jesus from?
If so, do you accept that on several occasions in the NT, Jesus says quite clearly that the NT does not replace the teachings of the OT, but adds to them. Jesus says the OT is the word of god. That's what Jesus teaches. (Matthew 5:17 for example)
So I'm not so sure his teaching have nothing to do with homophobia and misogyny. He seems to actively support them.
Yes even allowing for the discrepancies and mistakes and alterations as translation follows translation I believe the essentials of the teachings are accurately reported. If so, do you accept that on several occasions in the NT, Jesus says quite clearly that the NT does not replace the teachings of the OT, but adds to them. Jesus says the OT is the word of god. That's what Jesus teaches. (Matthew 5:17 for example)
So I'm not so sure his teaching have nothing to do with homophobia and misogyny. He seems to actively support them.
Taking your example (Matthew 5:17) here is what Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". Where within the law (largely Moses) or prophesies (The Prophets) is misogyny or homophobia encouraged? What Jesus appears to be saying (in 5:17) is that the law and prophesies were a foreshadowing of what his presence brought into reality. For example, the ritual of sacrifice as a foreshadowing of the crucifixion - the sacrifice which fulfilled the need for sacrifice which thereafter was not required (because its need was fulfilled). TBH I can't even see any connection with support of misogyny/homophobia/ills of the world.
Most would agree that what the bible says was going on there, which resulted in God destroying everyone involved, pretty much. Not really a message of tolerance.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
drainbrain said:
My faith - Christianity - basically means I am a follower of the teachings and attempted imitator of the life of Jesus who himself never used the term Christian/Christianity. It's a man made term for following Jesus/His teachings. It has nothing to do with homophobia and/or misogyny.
Do you believe what Jesus said is accurately reported in the New Testament. If not, then where are you getting the teachings of Jesus from?If so, do you accept that on several occasions in the NT, Jesus says quite clearly that the NT does not replace the teachings of the OT, but adds to them. Jesus says the OT is the word of god. That's what Jesus teaches. (Matthew 5:17 for example)
So I'm not so sure his teaching have nothing to do with homophobia and misogyny. He seems to actively support them.
I applaud your good character though drainbrain but feel you would have been this way had you been born a muslim, hindu or even an Atheist.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think followers will always read into it whatever they want to. Most people claim to follow a religion, whereas what they actually mean is that their chosen religion follows them. They have a world view, and bend their religion to match their perception. I could quote countless teaching of Jesus that are far from pleasant (see Matthew 10:34), only to be told the "what he actually means is fluffy kittens and chocolate drops.".
Again, I can't see how you read unpleasantness into 10:34. Unless of course the mention of 'sword's taken as a literal sword (like the one Peter drew in Gethsemane) rather than a metaphorical sword (Luke 2:35 for example). Jesus trial guilt centred on his blasphemies. One of which was his statement on destroying the temple and re-raising it in 3 days. Ok, the insightful interpretation understands he was referring to his death and resurrection. But, hey, interpreted literally it's a decent reason to execute someone, isn't it?
And I suppose you'd say the insightful interpretation is 'bending religion to match perception'. But there's really no wisdom in that, is there? It doesn't really satisfy intellectually (as Pilate was well aware).
Edited by drainbrain on Friday 29th July 16:55
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As religious faith is all made up, where do you draw the line the made up faith and the made up faith substitute.
It's a bit like launching a product called "I Can't Believe it's not Margarine".
Hey, slow down a bit! What are you defining as 'faith' in the context of Christianity?It's a bit like launching a product called "I Can't Believe it's not Margarine".
Blue Cat said:
If humans didn't have faith to fight over, they would find something else.
For a lot of people, faith is just the excuse for their crimes. I have no doubt that if all faiths were banned tomorrow, within a few years there would be other reasons for fighting, colour of skin, country you were born in for example.
What are you basing that on because the evidence suggests otherwise. The more the world has moved away from religion, the more peaceful it has become.For a lot of people, faith is just the excuse for their crimes. I have no doubt that if all faiths were banned tomorrow, within a few years there would be other reasons for fighting, colour of skin, country you were born in for example.
And pretty much all the most violent places on earth are deeply religious.
This is just another hook that people reach for to justify their belief. Clearly the idea is ingrained early that abandoning religion would lead to all sorts of chaos, that the horrors of the world committed in the name of religion would continue regardless, and that individuals would suddenly find themselves unable to stop raping and pillaging. It's yet another fallacy.
History has shown that people get along absolutely fine without religion.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff