Conversion to religion
Discussion
drainbrain said:
Einion Yrth said:
I really don't care enough to try and find it. Other's mileage may vary. I'm pretty sure that "Jesus Christ" is a composite of previous beliefs, rather than an individual (whether divine or not) anyways. You believe whatever makes you happy, and I'm fine with that, just so long as you don't expect me to join in.
That's a bit like the reaction The Lord got when he invited the baying mob to cast the first stone. Nothing new there then.Next?
If not, why was the CofE trying so hard to block gay marriage? Did they just make that up because they are mean? I recall they mentioned God will alot when they were banging on about it. Where did they get the idea from, if not scripture?
drainbrain said:
SWoll said:
And as usual we have descended into the nonsensical, theological twaddle that always blights these threads.
Your words are so obviously smoke and mirrors designed to confuse the weak minded and gullible into thinking you might have an actual point it's embarrassing.
Don't tell me. You're another who has attained a deep and lasting satisfaction in life through travel music and family life. A satisfaction that it is 100% certain cannot be attained by anyone via spiritual means. And, let me guess. If the senses can't feel it or the mind (that is YOUR mind) comprehend it, it 100% doesn't exist. Right? Your words are so obviously smoke and mirrors designed to confuse the weak minded and gullible into thinking you might have an actual point it's embarrassing.
Sheesh! Spiritual virgins! Make me feel like a dirty old man...
What I do know is that I choose to believe that life is finite and the world is full of wonders that don't require a supernatural explanation or faith in a higher power to appreciate. Religion to me is like a safety line, some grip to it very tightly (yourself included) whilst other choose to live their lives without the need for constant supervision and an answer to all questions.
TBH I'm not sure why anyone would want to be 100% satisfied as the drive for discovery and furthering our understanding of ourselves and the world around us would stop.
What you describe sounds to me more like self-satisfaction, an observation which is borne out in the sanctimonious posting style I associate with most people who confess to unwavering faith.
///ajd said:
I thought the whole Jesus / sodom / man love thing we discussed above was pretty conclusive on the origins of christian homophobia?
Righhhht. So the idea here is that God's destruction of Sodom - who amongst many anti-God features were also inclined to a bit of mass homosexual rape - somehow shows that Jesus teachings support misogyny/homophobia/paedophilia……Oh please! I shouldn't laugh really. Tell me…... any other backers for this , erm, interesting theological theory?
drainbrain said:
Einion Yrth said:
I didn't. I've been elsewhere, why should I go to the trouble of "scrolling back" to observe your "sloppy seconds". Oh and plus 1 for the rather feeble straw man argument at the end of your post.
QuiteEnjoy your faith, but don't think you're "right" because of it. As I've posted elsewhere in this thread I seem to be incapable of faith, and frankly if an omnipotent being existed, do you not think it might have left some convincing evidence?
SWoll said:
I wouldn't be arrogant enough to comment on another's level of satisfaction in comparison to my own as that is hugely personal. I leave that to people like you.
What I do know is that I choose to believe that life is finite and the world is full of wonders that don't require a supernatural explanation or faith in a higher power to appreciate. Religion to me is like a safety line, some grip to it very tightly (yourself included) whilst other choose to live their lives without the need for constant supervision and an answer to all questions.
TBH I'm not sure why anyone would want to be 100% satisfied as the drive for discovery and furthering our understanding of ourselves and the world around us would stop.
What you describe sounds to me more like self-satisfaction, an observation which is borne out in the sanctimonious posting style I associate with most people who confess to unwavering faith.
So is the spiritual dimension in this finite life within a 'world full of wonders' something you've outgrown, never attained, yet to explore, or simply doesn't exist? What I do know is that I choose to believe that life is finite and the world is full of wonders that don't require a supernatural explanation or faith in a higher power to appreciate. Religion to me is like a safety line, some grip to it very tightly (yourself included) whilst other choose to live their lives without the need for constant supervision and an answer to all questions.
TBH I'm not sure why anyone would want to be 100% satisfied as the drive for discovery and furthering our understanding of ourselves and the world around us would stop.
What you describe sounds to me more like self-satisfaction, an observation which is borne out in the sanctimonious posting style I associate with most people who confess to unwavering faith.
drainbrain said:
///ajd said:
I thought the whole Jesus / sodom / man love thing we discussed above was pretty conclusive on the origins of christian homophobia?
Righhhht. So the idea here is that God's destruction of Sodom - who amongst many anti-God features were also inclined to a bit of mass homosexual rape - somehow shows that Jesus teachings support misogyny/homophobia/paedophilia……Oh please! I shouldn't laugh really. Tell me…... any other backers for this , erm, interesting theological theory?
Why did the CofE really want to block gay marriage? Why is it such a taboo? They mention the bible alot but stick to very vague bits about "men and women being men and women" that seem to carry very little weight.
This is an interesting video about the origins of religion.
I'm still not aware of which religions are scientifically accurate. Plenty that aren't.
http://youtu.be/88GTUXvp-50
I'm still not aware of which religions are scientifically accurate. Plenty that aren't.
http://youtu.be/88GTUXvp-50
Those who suggest this, that or the other in support of unevidenced belief seem happy in their dead end. Let them be. If BD wants to deny that religions are man made, then what's the problem? Leave him be in his certainty, shallow though it is.It is all but impossible to convince someone who ignores logic by use of logic.
He states, somewhere, that he's not a member of a religion. So he appears to have invented his own, like many do. The odd thing is that non-theists are told that they are conceited. So he, like non-theist, deny the 4200 odd odd religions but he goes a leap forward and reckons that he, and he alone it seems, has crack who god is. Is he the new prophet? It seems more than a little bit strange, but there is nothing wrong in being strange.
It is religions, the ones run by demigods almost literally, that concern me. The popes reckon they can tell their god's will. Now Darwin has been criticised for being conceited, so what about popes? These religions have influence vastly greater than they have active club members. This must stop. They preach that spreading fatal diseases in better than breaking a rule that one of their popes says is important. These religions teach that woman can't possibly run their club or know the will of a god because of original sin (didn't that take two?). They reckon that it is evil that two people of the same sex who love one another should enjoy each other's bodies.
Such teachings and actions make me believe in evil. We should not support such idiot, violent and immoral groups, yet our constitution demands we do.
Let the deluded have the opportunity to rectify their ignorance. If they don't want to take part in modern life, then so be it. Free country and all that. It is religions that should be damned.
He states, somewhere, that he's not a member of a religion. So he appears to have invented his own, like many do. The odd thing is that non-theists are told that they are conceited. So he, like non-theist, deny the 4200 odd odd religions but he goes a leap forward and reckons that he, and he alone it seems, has crack who god is. Is he the new prophet? It seems more than a little bit strange, but there is nothing wrong in being strange.
It is religions, the ones run by demigods almost literally, that concern me. The popes reckon they can tell their god's will. Now Darwin has been criticised for being conceited, so what about popes? These religions have influence vastly greater than they have active club members. This must stop. They preach that spreading fatal diseases in better than breaking a rule that one of their popes says is important. These religions teach that woman can't possibly run their club or know the will of a god because of original sin (didn't that take two?). They reckon that it is evil that two people of the same sex who love one another should enjoy each other's bodies.
Such teachings and actions make me believe in evil. We should not support such idiot, violent and immoral groups, yet our constitution demands we do.
Let the deluded have the opportunity to rectify their ignorance. If they don't want to take part in modern life, then so be it. Free country and all that. It is religions that should be damned.
///ajd said:
Well, you did ask. Why are they going on about man love at all? Why did they all get set on fire? Even looking back at it got you turned into a pillar of salt.
Why did the CofE really want to block gay marriage? Why is it such a taboo? They mention the bible alot but stick to very vague bits about "men and women being men and women" that seem to carry very little weight.
You're asking several things here which could EACH take hours and pages to answer. But let's just home in on one thing. Love. In English there really is only one word for it. But in the Greek commonly used in Jesus time and which was amongst the earliest languages used for scripture there are six. SIX! Six different words for six different types of love. Google it. "greek words for love". Why did the CofE really want to block gay marriage? Why is it such a taboo? They mention the bible alot but stick to very vague bits about "men and women being men and women" that seem to carry very little weight.
Do you agree that there's only one type of love between men that appears to anger God? And if you do, which one? And why do YOU think the OT God wouldn't want men to share THAT type of love when he was happy enough with all the other types? A lot of this isn't that hard, tho.
drainbrain said:
BigLion said:
Drainbrain or anyone else - out of interest regarding Angel Gabriel did he/she appear to Christianity and Mohammed at around the same date?
The answers you've had are good answers, but don't forget that there may be more types of 'time' than the one we use defined by hours and minutes and distances travelled through space. You've probably experienced what I mean. A minute's like an hour in the dentist's chair. And sometimes when you're having fun time seems to pass much quicker.
Then there's eternity. How long is that in terms of hours and minutes? And what is it anyway? All we really can know and experience is the absolute immediate NOW moment. The moment that's immediately passed only to be immediately replaced with the next NOW moment. It doesn't have a definition by clock. It's not a zillionth of a second or a zillion zillionth of a second. It is endlessly small. But also endlessly big. Suddenly you get the insight. Eternity and the NOW are the same. It's just not measurable in circular/clock time terms. So whilst Gabriel may have appeared to both at different times/dates on man's clock/calendar to Gabriel they may have been simultaneous events.
Derek Smith said:
Those who suggest this, that or the other in support of unevidenced belief seem happy in their dead end. Let them be. If BD wants to deny that religions are man made, then what's the problem? Leave him be in his certainty, shallow though it is.It is all but impossible to convince someone who ignores logic by use of logic.
He states, somewhere, that he's not a member of a religion. So he appears to have invented his own, like many do. The odd thing is that non-theists are told that they are conceited. So he, like non-theist, deny the 4200 odd odd religions but he goes a leap forward and reckons that he, and he alone it seems, has crack who god is. Is he the new prophet? It seems more than a little bit strange, but there is nothing wrong in being strange.
It is religions, the ones run by demigods almost literally, that concern me. The popes reckon they can tell their god's will. Now Darwin has been criticised for being conceited, so what about popes? These religions have influence vastly greater than they have active club members. This must stop. They preach that spreading fatal diseases in better than breaking a rule that one of their popes says is important. These religions teach that woman can't possibly run their club or know the will of a god because of original sin (didn't that take two?). They reckon that it is evil that two people of the same sex who love one another should enjoy each other's bodies.
Such teachings and actions make me believe in evil. We should not support such idiot, violent and immoral groups, yet our constitution demands we do.
Let the deluded have the opportunity to rectify their ignorance. If they don't want to take part in modern life, then so be it. Free country and all that. It is religions that should be damned.
Lots of words and confusion here. Primarily, I suspect, the confusion between christian faith and organised religion and its ancillaries and offshoots. Bad Pope, bad Catholicism; ergo bad Jesus, Bad God and Bad faith. Nothing new there, then? He states, somewhere, that he's not a member of a religion. So he appears to have invented his own, like many do. The odd thing is that non-theists are told that they are conceited. So he, like non-theist, deny the 4200 odd odd religions but he goes a leap forward and reckons that he, and he alone it seems, has crack who god is. Is he the new prophet? It seems more than a little bit strange, but there is nothing wrong in being strange.
It is religions, the ones run by demigods almost literally, that concern me. The popes reckon they can tell their god's will. Now Darwin has been criticised for being conceited, so what about popes? These religions have influence vastly greater than they have active club members. This must stop. They preach that spreading fatal diseases in better than breaking a rule that one of their popes says is important. These religions teach that woman can't possibly run their club or know the will of a god because of original sin (didn't that take two?). They reckon that it is evil that two people of the same sex who love one another should enjoy each other's bodies.
Such teachings and actions make me believe in evil. We should not support such idiot, violent and immoral groups, yet our constitution demands we do.
Let the deluded have the opportunity to rectify their ignorance. If they don't want to take part in modern life, then so be it. Free country and all that. It is religions that should be damned.
But first, what is his understanding and experience of 'spirituality'? Is 'faith' man-made?
And why shouldn't he be offered a crack at the baby question:
Where in scripture does Jesus preach or encourage misogyny/homophobia/paedophilia or violence? Or spread the idea that the publicans (as tax gatherers were then called) should be working for his 'benefit' rather than Caesar's?
Edited by drainbrain on Friday 29th July 22:09
drainbrain said:
Do you agree that there's only one type of love between men that appears to anger God?
Edited by Wayne E Edge on Friday 29th July 22:17
Wayne E Edge said:
I think your point is moot because there is no such thing. How many gods are there by the way (rhetorical)? I'm sure every religious sect thinks theirs is the only one.
To the best of your knowledge and experience there is no God, but that may not be a universally shared understanding. In my opinion there is only one God though he has 3 aspects. I agree that every religious sect thinks theirs is the only one, and more. I would think that if every theist of every sect throughout the world was given a sheet of A4 and asked to draw God there may not be two identical drawings produced.
///ajd said:
drainbrain said:
One fascinating and endlessly recurring feature of the spiritually challenged is their obsessive association of faith with life after death. If only they knew that
that eternal life (which is indeed a BIG blessing) includes this earthly life. Our earthly life - the one you're enjoying - is described by James as a vapour. We all know it's temporary. And in the grand scale of eternity it is indeed like the blink of an eye. It's also very very hard to enjoy other than most fleetingly. And that's because we cannot help but be affected by our environment and all the pain it contains. Not for ourselves but for others. Whose heart isn't wrenched by all the daily outpouring of misery we're bombarded with especially now in our super connected global village? And who can sit there and say they are truly satisfied in this material world when so many of the brothers and sisters on this tiny tiny blue dot are the opposite?
Well you are he. They might be getting raped and murdered; starving homeless and naked. They might be riddled with disease or under some monster's jackboot. No direction home and the bombs raining all round them. Racked with stress and depression and worried to distraction for themselves and their children. But hey-ho! Doesn't affect you, does it? You've found lasting satisfaction and bask in the 'enjoyment of your winnings'.
Seriously? Nonsense. Very very few are that selfish and oblivious to the atmosphere around them.
Y'see mate it ain't possible. And it doesn't take much to work out why. This world and worldly things and thinking do not provide satisfaction, or happiness, other than for fleeting moments.
But of course that's all there really is, not so? No such thing as spirituality. Just what the senses can experience and the mind conceptualise. And, of course, because that's as far as it goes for YOU that's as far as it goes, period. Not so?
What a surprise YOU'VE got in store!
What's his surprise? Is he going to hell or something?that eternal life (which is indeed a BIG blessing) includes this earthly life. Our earthly life - the one you're enjoying - is described by James as a vapour. We all know it's temporary. And in the grand scale of eternity it is indeed like the blink of an eye. It's also very very hard to enjoy other than most fleetingly. And that's because we cannot help but be affected by our environment and all the pain it contains. Not for ourselves but for others. Whose heart isn't wrenched by all the daily outpouring of misery we're bombarded with especially now in our super connected global village? And who can sit there and say they are truly satisfied in this material world when so many of the brothers and sisters on this tiny tiny blue dot are the opposite?
Well you are he. They might be getting raped and murdered; starving homeless and naked. They might be riddled with disease or under some monster's jackboot. No direction home and the bombs raining all round them. Racked with stress and depression and worried to distraction for themselves and their children. But hey-ho! Doesn't affect you, does it? You've found lasting satisfaction and bask in the 'enjoyment of your winnings'.
Seriously? Nonsense. Very very few are that selfish and oblivious to the atmosphere around them.
Y'see mate it ain't possible. And it doesn't take much to work out why. This world and worldly things and thinking do not provide satisfaction, or happiness, other than for fleeting moments.
But of course that's all there really is, not so? No such thing as spirituality. Just what the senses can experience and the mind conceptualise. And, of course, because that's as far as it goes for YOU that's as far as it goes, period. Not so?
What a surprise YOU'VE got in store!
My standard response when told I'm going straight to hell is "great...I hate queuing."
drainbrain said:
Lots of words and confusion here. Primarily, I suspect, the confusion between christian faith and organised religion and its ancillaries and offshoots. Bad Pope, bad Catholicism; ergo bad Jesus, Bad God and Bad faith. Nothing new there, then?
But first, what is his understanding and experience of 'spirituality'? Is 'faith' man-made?
And why shouldn't he be offered a crack at the baby question:
Where in scripture does Jesus preach or encourage misogyny/homophobia/paedophilia or violence? Or spread the idea that the publicans (as tax gatherers were then called) should be working for his 'benefit' rather than Caesar's?
Is it the number of words that confused you? I have not mentioned your Jesus. I have stuck entirely to the preachings of religions. But first, what is his understanding and experience of 'spirituality'? Is 'faith' man-made?
And why shouldn't he be offered a crack at the baby question:
Where in scripture does Jesus preach or encourage misogyny/homophobia/paedophilia or violence? Or spread the idea that the publicans (as tax gatherers were then called) should be working for his 'benefit' rather than Caesar's?
Edited by drainbrain on Friday 29th July 22:09
I have made the difference between what you suggest is faith and religions quite clear. You believe what the hell you want. No one should try to stop you. I accept that such rejection of logic might well be harmful, but you are, I assume, an adult so I should keep out of your distractions.
You ask where does your jesus encourage misogyny, homophobia and paedophilia or violence. If the various books in the NT had stated that he said that the OT is old hat then there would be no accusations. But just the reverse is true. The OT is full of such stuff. Indeed, the first two and final item above have been covered in this thread already. You mention offences against children. I did not in the post quoted. However, crimes, and serious ones, against children by officers of various religions have been revealed recently, as have the attempts of board members to cover up and blame the victims.
My paternal grandmother was, at the age of around 6, taken from her mother and placed in a workhouse run by nuns. She was beaten. Her twin brother was killed. It was well known that this sort of abuse went on and it was tolerated by the church. Nothing seems to have changed in the ethos of the religion.
So let me state my point again, as it seems to have passed you by:
1/ You believe what you want to believe.
2/ Religions should not be part of the state, nor should they enjoy preferential treatment. There should be no religious schools, at least funded by me.
Still confused?
drainbrain said:
SWoll said:
I wouldn't be arrogant enough to comment on another's level of satisfaction in comparison to my own as that is hugely personal. I leave that to people like you.
What I do know is that I choose to believe that life is finite and the world is full of wonders that don't require a supernatural explanation or faith in a higher power to appreciate. Religion to me is like a safety line, some grip to it very tightly (yourself included) whilst other choose to live their lives without the need for constant supervision and an answer to all questions.
TBH I'm not sure why anyone would want to be 100% satisfied as the drive for discovery and furthering our understanding of ourselves and the world around us would stop.
What you describe sounds to me more like self-satisfaction, an observation which is borne out in the sanctimonious posting style I associate with most people who confess to unwavering faith.
So is the spiritual dimension in this finite life within a 'world full of wonders' something you've outgrown, never attained, yet to explore, or simply doesn't exist? What I do know is that I choose to believe that life is finite and the world is full of wonders that don't require a supernatural explanation or faith in a higher power to appreciate. Religion to me is like a safety line, some grip to it very tightly (yourself included) whilst other choose to live their lives without the need for constant supervision and an answer to all questions.
TBH I'm not sure why anyone would want to be 100% satisfied as the drive for discovery and furthering our understanding of ourselves and the world around us would stop.
What you describe sounds to me more like self-satisfaction, an observation which is borne out in the sanctimonious posting style I associate with most people who confess to unwavering faith.
Spiritual is such a nonsense word IMHO, banded around by everyone from TV evangelists to people trying to sell you crystals down the local market.
drainbrain said:
///ajd said:
Well, you did ask. Why are they going on about man love at all? Why did they all get set on fire? Even looking back at it got you turned into a pillar of salt.
Why did the CofE really want to block gay marriage? Why is it such a taboo? They mention the bible alot but stick to very vague bits about "men and women being men and women" that seem to carry very little weight.
You're asking several things here which could EACH take hours and pages to answer. But let's just home in on one thing. Love. In English there really is only one word for it. But in the Greek commonly used in Jesus time and which was amongst the earliest languages used for scripture there are six. SIX! Six different words for six different types of love. Google it. "greek words for love". Why did the CofE really want to block gay marriage? Why is it such a taboo? They mention the bible alot but stick to very vague bits about "men and women being men and women" that seem to carry very little weight.
Do you agree that there's only one type of love between men that appears to anger God? And if you do, which one? And why do YOU think the OT God wouldn't want men to share THAT type of love when he was happy enough with all the other types? A lot of this isn't that hard, tho.
Whats more the angels seem unbothered about the sodom men having eros with lot's virgin daughters, but they get torched to death for wanting man on man eros.
The message seems quite clear really. It doesn't read well in todays more tolerant society, that's true. I can understand why its dangerous territory for discusssion.
BigLion said:
drainbrain said:
BigLion said:
Drainbrain or anyone else - out of interest regarding Angel Gabriel did he/she appear to Christianity and Mohammed at around the same date?
The answers you've had are good answers, but don't forget that there may be more types of 'time' than the one we use defined by hours and minutes and distances travelled through space. You've probably experienced what I mean. A minute's like an hour in the dentist's chair. And sometimes when you're having fun time seems to pass much quicker.
Then there's eternity. How long is that in terms of hours and minutes? And what is it anyway? All we really can know and experience is the absolute immediate NOW moment. The moment that's immediately passed only to be immediately replaced with the next NOW moment. It doesn't have a definition by clock. It's not a zillionth of a second or a zillion zillionth of a second. It is endlessly small. But also endlessly big. Suddenly you get the insight. Eternity and the NOW are the same. It's just not measurable in circular/clock time terms. So whilst Gabriel may have appeared to both at different times/dates on man's clock/calendar to Gabriel they may have been simultaneous events.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff