Who says miracle cures don't happen?
The headline is just priceless...
Printable View
Who says miracle cures don't happen?
The headline is just priceless...
:lol:
Have you seen the film 'Jesus Camp'? It features an interview with Haggard (before his Fall), in which he repeatedly squawks the word 'Fabulous!' in the campest voice ever.
I think it would take a lot more than a couple of months of prayin' (and donatin') to have an effect.
I for one can't wait to hear Fuddams take on this.
Did they just sit around him and constantly argued with him until he gave in?
However they did it, it's nice to see the most powerful country in the world has such a tolerant attittude towards (once -alledgedly-and-now-most-definitely-not) gay clergy.
okQuote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
Well, I do not know your views on homosexuality but I would be interested to hear your take on this. Do you think he has been 'cured'?
I won't agree to the word 'cured' - that's incredibly loaded.
Is he still a closet homosexual? who knows.
Is it possible for someone who is homosexual to become heterosexual? yes - but not through any 'therapy' / psychology / self denial / behavioural programming.
Do I believe he 'discovered' he's completely heterosexual? No.
I think he's just in (public) denial, and if he hadn't been caught, it's unlikely he would have 'discovered' anything.
He's probably been promised some lofty position in the church if he denies his sexuality publicly. either that or a Nintendo Wii.
The only thing he 'discovered' is that if you're a preacher espousing intolerant views it's best not to get caught engaging in drug-fueled sex orgies. The 'Christian' Right loves the idea of curing homosexuality, but it's just another of their many myths.
How then?Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
Awww, that'd be one way of boosting falling chruch attendances...Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski
"The men in the congregation will now stand as we sing 'All Things Bright and Beautiful'... the women can all kneel... you know what to do..."
um......falling church attendance is a myth, actually. Is based on regular / traditional churches, not modern pentecostal placesQuote:
Originally Posted by Nick
eg KT in NW london: over 10,000 peeps
ALM in Bradford & Leeds: also more than 10,000
Hillsong London in Dominion Theatre: thousands every sunday
blah blah blah.
the church is changing, so the old style is falling into decline. Old wine skins and new wine etc.
you seem to have missed a question fuddam
Falling church attendance is a fact.
Of course, it depends on how you look at it. Even 'Fuddam the Zealot' would admit that church attendance has fallen since, for example, the 1860's.
I enjoyed this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christian-Br.../dp/0415241847
Which studies the phenomenon based on cultural influence. It's hypothesis is that while church attendance has been falling for more than a hundred years, people have only really been turning away from religion in the last 40 years. It's easy to quote figures for the CofE, since they seem to be the only one's who publish them. This book looks at changes in culture, like the children in school who hear the christmas story for the first time (It really isn't something they should hear in school TBH.) Or somone driving by a church when people are walking out, and commenting that they didn't know churches were open on Sundays. There is a trend towards increasing ignorance of christianity (just as I, and many others, are ignorant of islamic beliefs. (Although I have a funny story about Mormons..)) Think of it as a de-christianising of our culture.
nope. I elected not to answer it. Why? Because you wouldn't believe me anyway, so have said enough. Anyone who's seriously interested in the possibility can find the answers easily enough, but I get tired of constant scorn.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
as I said, traditional church attendance.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
tell me, does the good book go into any detail on the growth of house churches? Of the number of people meeting in each other's homes? Hmmm. Thought not. Was the style of the early Christian church, and is returning to same.
actually, there has been NO decline in religion, it's just that the direction has changed. The number of new age-y spiritual beliefs that have mushroomed in the same 40 years is astronomical. More than ever, people are searching for meaning, in a life that seems dominated by empty consumerism & hedonism. Just because of someone's assertions that less people are attending buildings of a particular type is no statement on the spiritual life of that nation. Equally, to claim a non-belief in Christianity does not mean a move to atheism.Quote:
ITS hypothesis is that while church attendance has been falling for more than a hundred years, people have only really been turning away from religion in the last 40 years.
horoscopes, mediums, feng shui, eckankar, witchcraft, etc etc etc.
fascinating story I came across last week: an RE teacher was discussing the existence of God. Most of the pupils jeered at the notion - there is no God etc. So she took out 50 quid, put it on the desk, and said it was free to the first pupil who was prepared to sell her their soul. After all, there isn't any such thing, right?
There were no takers.
Funny, that.
id have had it. and i dont beleive theres wasnt a fight over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
the best our RE teacher could come up with was that its "better to believe on the off chance that there is". which is a pathetic argument
I can't wait till we've finally gotten rid of all those orrible little Christians!
I'm just thinking of what we can use our local churches for once we’ve kicked em all out, the great acoustics are a plus for defo :)
Ohh the possibilities, skate park, mayhap the odd sacrifice or fortnightly orgies. Maybe a new lick of paint, ox-blood red, who knows?
Give me a few weeks and I'll pack the place out for sure!
:rolleyes: yes... "ox blood red"
keep a few of them as musiums, a country needs its history. the rest can become somethig more constructive
So what? That merely proves that it is impossible to be 100% sure whether there is or is not a god. I don't believe that there is a higher power, but I can't completely disprove it. I consider myself an atheist, but in truth that .01% uncertainty makes me agnostic.Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
In any case, I probably would have taken the £50. I wouldn't risk selling my soul for a Mars bar, but £50 is a different matter.....
how about a king size one?
infact id ebay my soul for £50 if i thaught it would sell. obviously i would have like 100 of them for sale too.
There is no set of statistics for house churches fuddam, which is why christians like to make that claim. That's the point of the book. It doesn't measure the religiousity of the nation by statistics, but by the christian influence on our culture. Hence why it's called, 'The death of Christian Britian'.
There's a theory for this kind of stuff. People don't believe in any kind of higher power mainly because of scientific influences within society nowadays - that was a big reason for the shift towards atheism/agnosticism in more recent years. There's more people trying to disprove religion than there are trying to prove it, yet people seem to think this is because religious cultures don't have a concrete ground to stand on when it comes to their faith. The actual reason is mainly because of religious literature teaching the followers that they don't have to prove themselves in many ways.
I think a lot of non-religious people are just plain rude. The majority of religious people I know nowadays are living happy lives and generally being contented with what they do, not poking their nose in anyone else's business. However, the non-religious type constantly put themselves out of their way to try and prove the non-existence of a higher power. It makes me wonder who they're trying to convince. And everytime I make a comment like this the typical response is usually "no, we're just trying to make them understand". Understand what? That you don't have a clue about the majority of religions yet you're basing your facts on opinions of illiterate individuals?
</rant>
;)
I can't actually remember the name of the theory explaining existence itself, i.e. if you don't believe in a higher power then how did everything come into existence in the first place? Then it follows up by "then if you do believe in a higher power, who created that?". It's infinitely recursive, and I can't remember the name of it! >_< Ah well, back to work :D
On one hand they're saying that he's not a practicing homosexual and then they say that "He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed".
They should make up their minds - however, I was never confused
Yes, it's a sin to practice homosexuality as opposed to consider it, in Christianity anyway.
EDIT: It's actually a sin to consider it in fact. Thoughts are a cause for sin as well. Recently the law was changed to allow practicing homosexuals inside churches which obviously has stirred the hive.
dont worry people. if you BELIEVE you will be OK! :rolleyes:
Again, a stereotypical response. I wonder how much clue you have about religion? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
I'm a kidder really, don't take it harshly. Plus, forums seem to always portray some kind of evil scheme in peoples posts.
so that isnt one of the cornerstones of the religion? one of the main attractions for so many of the weak minded?
i mean, who would bother if your going to burn anyway?
Woah!
Just because someone has faith doesn't make them weak minded.
Amen brother ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
its will be mostly subconscious. so i wouldnt blame you for it anyway
So why are religious people weak minded? They live lives of celebacy, refrain from any kind of fornication, avoid certain foods, direct their thinking towards religious icons. Surely it's easier to become someone who is not religious? Then surely that means that non-religious types are more-so weak minded than religious types?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
For example, it's easier to pick up your favourite food and eat it, maybe a chocolate bar or a bag of crisps. It's more difficult to refrain from eating that particular food. Same applies for religion. It's mentally tougher to restrict yourself from certain things than it is to just let go and lead your life without religion in it. So to conclude, is it really the weak minded people who turn to religion? I don't see the logic in that statement myself.
if it was a case of not eating your faverout food to lose weight, save money etc then thats fine.
however the conformity nessesairy in order to reach "a higher being" isnt like this, its more like brainwashing. someone else has told you that you must do this in order to get to the prize at the end.
Conformity? You mean good moral standards? Sorry, I didn't realise this was a conformity in modern Earth. Also, what prize? You do realise there are self-less religious types right? People who don't do good to receive that "prize" at the end. Could you never be content with the fact you're doing some good in the world despite what may ever happen to you in the end?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
you have totally just read my mind kezzer. these is no need for religion. common sence and respect for others is all you needQuote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
It's a shame the majority of people don't have that :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
so religion is the alternative?
Now you're just blatantly trying to stir something by reading inbetween the lines ;) I would never, ever force religious viewpoints on anyone. I just don't understand why people are so intent in dehumanising religious beliefs just because they don't agree with them. If someone takes drugs, I don't go up to them and say "what you're doing is completely wrong", I let them live their lives however they want, because it has nothing to do with me. It seems every anti-religious person wait until they can make a comment against religious viewpoints just to try and prove to themselves that their own argument is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
There's only two ways I can look at the "God Situation"
1) He/She/It does not exist
2) He/She/It does not give a damn about what we do in our lives and does not want to micro-manage every aspect of 6 billions little bugs crawling around on a little dungheap in one corner of the universe
3) He/She/It is like a child, does not know why he(etc) exists and is creating worlds/universe(s) to observe and experience and understand the reason for his existence
End result - Religion is fairly pointless and only serves to alleviate man's sense of insignificance.
Anywhere in the developed world, I'll bet more than an RE teacher's apocryphal £50 note that religious people are on average less intelligent than atheists for at least two reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
1) You are born into a religion, but you become an atheist as a result of thinking about stuff. If you never think about anything, you believe the same stuff you parents did, and their parents before them, all the way back to Adam and Eve (and their hugely inbred offspring - or would it be Noah and a giraffe or something?). In order to be religious today, you have to come from an unbroken long line of people who believe the first thing they are told and never question it. Or maybe they question it, but are incapable or coming up with a better idea. Either way....
2) Everywhere in the world religion is strongly negatively correlated with education; i.e. the more of one you have the less of the other. In order for someone to grow up in a society that educates it's children for years and years and years and STILL end up able to form no better ideas about the world than an illiterate subsistence farmer, they arguably must be weaker-minded than their contemporaries. A kinder way to put it would be to say that their mind is like stony ground that the seed of their education fell on, and withered.
... you're talking out of your arse. Surely you're not suggesting that only people brought up as Christians remain as Christians? I mean, as falisfiable claims go, I need to look as far as, well, me, to disprove you on that one. and what exactly do you mean by weak minded anyway? Undereducated? Of lower IQ? What?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPreston
Not that I believe that for a second, but that story is an illustration of 'Pascal's Wager' - the assymmetry between the two payouts of believing vs non-believing.Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
If you believe, and are wrong, then you get eaten by worms but have only wasted your Sunday afternoons (or 1/10 of your lifetime wealth in tithes, or some oxen, or your firstborn child). If you are right you get a harp and 72 virgins and live forever in paradise.
If you don't believe, and are wrong, then you get to adopt a superior attitude for your four score years and ten but then spend eternity getting sodomised by demons in burning hell, or something.
A dull child will conclude that adopting a religious belief is the only rational thing to do.
But anyone capable of a more sophisticated analysis will conclude that the chance of pciking the correct god out of the 100,000s of deities that humans have worshipped throughout history is vanishingly small - not to mention that by choosing the wrong god you might be making things infinitely worse for yourself anyway.
If the children in the class were all too thick to work this out for themselves and take the £50 note, then obviously they need to spend less time in RE and more time learning the very basics.
people with problems in there life will also go hunting for a "cure". so no not necessarily only people born into it, just the majority.
No need for that sort of language; if I've offended you why don't you just 'forgive' me? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Any definition of weak-minded will hold, even if you believe that an education involves nothing more than rote learning (which if you have an exclusively religious education - and there's a contradiction in terms - it doesn't). If you accept to any extent at all that through education the mind is made more capable, then the one follows from the other to some extent.
On average, even within the same culture religious people are less educated and hence less intelligent. IMO...
its an artificially imposed restriction on there way of thinking
could you supply some evidence, please? real evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPreston
well, that was 3 ways, unless we're working with different numbering systems :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Sinizter
let's add #4: you know what love is / have experienced it in your own life. the sum total of all worthwhile endeavours in your life revolve around relationship. There is a God who desires a loving relationship with His creation, although as evidenced by your post, many of His creation do not care 2 hoots.
#4 negates your theories 1 through 3, I believe.
you gotta admit, whatever you think, that a white middle class christian has a much better stinked
i find the tone of most atheists on this forum to be quite distasteful. the aura of smug self-satisfied gitishness is really quite cringeworthy.
*on the OP's topic*, the "rentboy-loving clergyman not actually gay" thing is quite clearly bollocks. most organized religion (especially in the US) is. but that doesn't have any impact on the validity of spiritual belief.
the overly opinionated ones ramming their religion down peoples throats on this forum are the atheists, not the christians, jews, muslims, or pastafarians.
well, it happened last week, unless you're calling me a liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPreston
unintelligent conflation of various belief systems.Quote:
If you believe, and are wrong, then you get eaten by worms but have only wasted your Sunday afternoons (or 1/10 of your lifetime wealth in tithes, or some oxen, or your firstborn child). If you are right you get a harp and 72 virgins and live forever in paradise.
if you are wrong, your choice is respected. God is not forced on you. You get to spend eternity without said God.Quote:
If you don't believe, and are wrong, then you get to adopt a superior attitude for your four score years and ten but then spend eternity getting sodomised by demons in burning hell, or something.
how can you say "will conclude"? Your have a love for making grand statements about the minds of all and sundry. Impressive.Quote:
But anyone capable of a more sophisticated analysis will conclude that the chance of pciking the correct god out of the 100,000s of deities that humans have worshipped throughout history is vanishingly small - not to mention that by choosing the wrong god you might be making things infinitely worse for yourself anyway.
There is a God. He makes himself known, since He loves His creation. He does not play games, He does not deny a relationship with any of His creation, since that would be unloving. He chases His creation, despite their continual rejection of Him.
you mean, spend more time learning the Word of Preston, right? THAT would be an answer to the world's problems, to conflict, to helping right wrongs, to spreading love & compassion. Not.Quote:
If the children in the class were all too thick to work this out for themselves and take the £50 note, then obviously they need to spend less time in RE and more time learning the very basics.
:lol: gotta love your insistence that they merit fastidious and lengthy cataloguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
"OM(christian)G you didn't mention 'feasting in valhalla' - that's soooooo ignorant"
:)
"Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't NEEDQuote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all
individuals"
I don't see why non-religious individuals feel the need to condemn the religious people. They're not causing any grief in your life, in fact, the majority of them have done a lot of good. Have you ever realised that many, many charities are made up of Christians?
I just don't understand why so many people are against religion.
Religion is just as illogical as atheism. If you're an atheist you believe nothing created you which is obviously illogical. If you're a religious type then you believe a God of some kind created you, but then who created that God? Again, illogical to the minds of mere humans. You'll never, ever understand, so quit pretending like you KNOW because you obviously don't, and there's no point in pretending like you know. You worship yourselves, yet you have no backing for your claims. I'm just utterly confused as to these statements.
There's no point in me expressing my religious views because it's only going to get torn apart. Also, I hope you realise that the Bible already explains everything you've all said. It's a good thing religious people have that on their side.
heh, some of the comments here from Hex and Kezzer are interesting.
To be quite frank, if we were having an argument about the existence of the tooth fairy would you be making such a comment? or are you saying that the tooth fairy is just as likely as god, in which case I think its fair to say that we are right to say that belief in a deity is completely unfounded and illogical. Belief in the tooth fair, the flying teapot or the FSM is stupid and nobody believes it, why are these bronze age deities are any different.Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
What the hell kind of critical thinking is that? seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
I have a fair idea where I came from based on a large amount of empirical evidence, I myself was a product of the human reproductive process, life as we know it is the result of a large cosmic game of chance that lead to the formation of the sun, the earth and the ammino acids that eventually formed cellular life and a few billion years of evolution (go look it up if you don't believe me...). Anybody who answers otherwise, really has not looked into it, and if you really think we were all created by God, Allah, Vishnu or Xenu then you are the product of religious indoctrination and have not applied any critical thinking. I am sick of being told to shut up by people who think we should protect these peoples feelings and beliefs. I have a right to question and I have a right to verbalise it, if that means that some other people have to be considered stupid to explain their unscientiffic and irrational belief 'system', so be it. I used to think I should respect other peoples beliefs, but the more I debate with these people, the more evidence of stupidity I see.
Somebody had to say it.
people use faith in order to explain the unexplainable. to a small child, the reason for money to appear instead of teeth in their sleep can be explained by fairies. after all, why not? the tooth fairy doesn't exist because we know who the man behind the curtain is - i.e. it's the parent with the spare change and jewelry box full of teethQuote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
for 'life', we have no empirical evidence of who is behind the curtain - some beardy guy, some creature of pasta and meat and tomato, or random quantum interactions between molecules. any claim that "i know who's behind it all" is by definition a leap of faith. considering the frequency with which scientific principles are overturned, i find it hard to place absolute faith in everything i'm told by a succession of generations of scientists.
do i believe some bloke with a beard created the universe in a few days, raped some arab chick, and arranged for his son to be nailed to wood? no. do i believe the entire history of creation from its unknown and unobserved origins up to this point can be explained by tau-neutrinos and quarks bouncing about? no. do i think scientific inquiry should be stopped in favor os a simple "it is what my preacher man says it is"? no. do i think the quest for knowledge, validation & understanding, regardless of how that quest takes place on an individual level, is an important one? absolutely.
i've grown past feeling superior to the religious. when i was a teenager, sure, but not anymore. i'd rather see people validate their own places in the universe, however they best feel, without resorting to being a smug git
and if it makes you feel any better, i've known many smug christian gits, and i wouldn't give them any more support than smug atheist gits.
You're still way off course. You do realise there are groups of Christians who agree with evolution right? I don't mean small groups, I mean hundreds of them. Read newscientist.com, it's even in there. You've still missed the point though and you're thinking on a small scale. How did existence itself come about? You'll probably just flame me for whatever I say because you're obviously 100% right.Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
In fact, you yourself must be god because you consider yourself to be correct. I myself will never say my opinion is correct, instead I sit here and say "whatever you believe is true, is true to you" and you have proved my point EXACTLY which is why I truly, truly do love your argument.
I love the scientists who say "existence came about by the big bang." Okay then, where did the matter come from to create the big ball of matter itself which in itself created the big bang? Hello? The lights are on but noone is home. You grind up religious types and throw them to the ground and you yourself cannot come up with a logical conclusion to life itself, so why judge them? Why tell them they're wrong even when you don't know any better? I still don't understand.
agreed :)Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
of course we all know directhex is technical fairy, first class!
not really. just noted it as ironic illustration of your clear and concise 'scientific' explanations. As usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPreston
as usual, depends which books you read. same old. Was just today looking at http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/ and, as usual, those professors and doctors at the bottom of the homepage are obviously less well read than yourself, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
same old..........
what did I just say?Quote:
Anybody who answers otherwise, really has not looked into it, and if you really think we were all created by God, Allah, Vishnu or Xenu then you are the product of religious indoctrination and have not applied any critical thinking.
who here told you to shut up?Quote:
I am sick of being told to shut up by people who think we should protect these peoples feelings and beliefs.
absolutely, and I would defend your right to do so. At same time, would not necessarily defend the way you do it.Quote:
I have a right to question and I have a right to verbalise it,
:lol: nice one - in a similar vein:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
"Very clever, Kezzer, very clever. But it's turtles all the way down" :O_o1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
Easy - just google "religion and IQ":Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001527.html
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001523.html
Of course what I said was slightly different, that within the same culture uneducated people will tend more religious and vice versa. I still say that is true but can't find any studies where they have tested children growing up in neighbouring households, one being empowered with the capacity for independent thought through education while the other is just told that Jesus is magic.Quote:
...religiosity is taken from the Pew Poll, and IQ from Lynn's site. Note that while the IQ data for each individual country needs to be taken with a grain of salt, overall the trends correlate well with independent measures like the Third International Mathematics and Science Survey as well as GDP-per-capita. To reiterate Razib's original point: religion and IQ are strongly negatively correlated (-.886), even more so than GDP-per-capita and IQ are strongly positively correlated (.757 w 1998 per-capita stats).
So maybe you can help me out with the only source you will accept; what does it say in the bible about education/wisdom/knowledge (and not the kind that comes from the bible e.g. pi equals 3)? Is it good :innocent: on the whole, or baaaaad :devilish: ?
Actually because I am familiar with the philosophical device known as 'Pascal's Wager' (and suspect many others are too) whereas you obviously just heard about it for the first time when you "came across it last week" - even though you later imply you were there "unless [I] am calling [you] a liar" :lol: - I write in shorthand about it and expect people posting on the topic of religion to be able to keep up - turtles all the way down, my boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
If you really think I need to dumb down in order to be understood by the more - ahem - 'challenged' (see above links), then just ask :)
The way I see it is that there are some things we just may never know, and we should be happy with that. For example, 200 years ago, people blamed lightening, eclipses and any other naturally occurring phenomenon on God. We now know that there's scientific explanations for everything previously thought to have been caused by God, except how the existence of the universe came to be. Therefore, I'd say it's more illogical to believe in God because of the lack of evidence for the existence of a deity. I'd say it's more logical to put the existence of the universe down to lack of knowledge rather than speculate that some higher being created everything we see today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
I've gotta agree with directhex here- although I don't agree with his dismissal of the need for proper punctuation and capital letters. Jo- sort it out man!
I have to take issue with Kezzer's assertion that it's atheist who are the aggro troublemakers in life- I've never once been stopped on the street by someone trying to convert me to atheism; religious people of varying flavours still try and convert me to this day.
I have neither the patience, nor the ability to concentrate, to comment on every point in this thread with which I disagree, so I'm just going to chime in with a personal anecdote. My best friend, who I've known since I was 12 (so 15 years now, and counting), returned to Catholicism with a vengeance when his mother died of cancer three or four years ago. He has pictures of JP2 and Benedict XVI all over his flat.
He's also bisexual, and when he's being honest admits that he prefers men to women. He has a strong enough sex drive that he can't simply deny his urges- so he basically has to spend his whole life castigating himself for being a sinner. That to me is ridiculous, and I tell him as much. I personally am 100% heterosexual, but as an atheist I don't see that as anything to be proud of, it's just the way I turned out. I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered if I was bisexual or gay. He on the other hand can't get laid without feeling guilty.
That's why I'm against organised religion. I couldn't care less about what people choose to believe about the afterlife, or lack of it. It's the way that it screws up people when they're alive that bothers me.
my loving treatment of the apostrophe in a world gone mad makes up for abuse of the humble capital letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave
You're against organised religion because of your bi-sexual religious friend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave
I'm against atheism because of my alcohol-abusing friend then.
:heckle:
Actually that statement just does not make any sense whatsoever. If everything good I do revolves around my relationships, where is "God" involved in all that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddam
As you just said, my life revolves around my relationships ... Not my relationship with God.
I am willing to concede that God may exist - but I am going to need more proof than faith. If God exists, then this is the way God made me. So I am not going to burn in Hell for something he did.
Again - End result = Religion is not worth concerning yourself about
You're looking for the term "what comes around, goes around", right? Reap what you sow? If you plant good seeds and nurture them then you will be blessed with a great harvest? etc. etc. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinizter
:D
Good linkage, better than mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajbrun
fuddam - your thoughts? Or do you need 'extra time'....:p ?
Nope, I wasnt looking for the "term". And this quoted statement doesnt make that much sense either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
oh no, I'm too stupid to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPreston
hang on, what was the question again?
my point was simply that one should consider God in terms of relationship, not in terms of some puppetmaster who likes to muck around with toys, or who has no idea of His purpose and therefore creates us to work it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinizter
sure. but IF you wanted to know Him, that knowledge would come through developing a relationship with Him. Not trying to follow a set of rules, or religious practices.Quote:
As you just said, my life revolves around my relationships ... Not my relationship with God.
Yep, He made you as you are. And accepts you as you are. But the million dollar question is whether you accept Him. And I agree, I would NOT simply accept His existence because someone told me He exists.Quote:
I am willing to concede that God may exist - but I am going to need more proof than faith. If God exists, then this is the way God made me. So I am not going to burn in Hell for something he did.
Each Christian in a living relationship with Him would agree that they have proof within - ie not something that can be proven outside, to a non-believer. His existence is that real, due it being a relationship, not a hypothesis. It is 2 way.
;)
Sorry dude. Relationships do not convince me of the existence of God. If everyone had something inside them, they should be able to explain or at the very least be able to describe it.
So God's existence is still a hypotheses.
I think we should stop here, or we risk repeating ourself over and over again discussing the very same points.
No come on - I think we have a very real chance of finally settling this once and for all :mrgreen:
we're talking at cross purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinizter
Wasn't trying to use relationships to convince you of God's existence. Am simply saying that the only way to grasp God's existence is through a relationship with Him, not through some airy fairy appeal to "you must believe because you must and because I say so".
A Christian can and should be able to describe what it is like to experience God inside them, but Preston et al dismiss it as loony ravings / hallucination / indoctrination / wild fantasy.
To someone who has not experienced Him, yes.Quote:
So God's existence is still a hypotheses.
For want of an example, my experience of Christ is essentially JOYFUL. I have joy in my life. A deep seated, deeply felt joy, regardless of context & circumstance -sometimes intense, sometimes simply peaceful. And it is in relationship that I experience it - we have a continual conversation. Every day.
see? raving looney, that's me.
But fuddam... People claim to have relationships about a lot of different gods. People claim to have a relationship about their imaginary friend.
Why is your experience different? If you haven't experienced a relationships about other gods, how can you say they aren't real?
Because your relationship says so?
Why do christians try to convince people that their relationship is real and noone elses?
For 'Relationship', substitute 'Delusion'.
Because anyone who isn't a Christian is wrong and will burn in hell. It says so in Kezzer's Gospel Chapter 12, Verse 15Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
Because they dont have the mental strength to live with the fact that they might be the one going to hell and burning merrily away because they believed in the wrong god ?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
(Disclaimer: It's more of a joke than a serious statement, so please dont be offended)
in answer to the 3 posts above
1) I never talked about any other religion, did I? I only talked about what I know.
2) ask a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Taoist, Shintoist, Anamist etc about how the daily conversation goes with their god/s. Not their side of the conversation, but that of the god/s.
3) ask people who practice those other religions to describe the nature of that relationship, AS DESCRIBED IN THEIR SACRED TEXT/S. Ask them to describe where it talks about having a personal relationship with said deities, and how that relationship can be characterised. Ask them if having a personal relationship is essential / pivotal to said religion.
4) ask them WHY their god/s want to have a personal relationship with their creation, and they should quote from their scripture (ie rather than conjecture).
note: I have not criticised those religions here, nor claimed that they are inaccurate / fallacious etc. There is no point in me saying otherwise.
In summation, the message of the gospel is one of love, expressed through relationship. I have not seen any other religious document / scripture than comes close.
No, you haven't answered a single question.
I thought Buddhists don't believe in a God? I thought it was pure materialism?
Interesting Discussion
What we are talking about here is Belief and TBH everyone is entitled to believe what they like. As it stands ALL belief systems have unanswered questions and you can pick holes in all of them.
Personally I don't believe in a supreme being but that's up to me, what you want to believe is up to you, just don't try and convince me otherwise, as unless I've expressed an interest I wont care.
As for the priest I think it all smacks of spin being applied by the church.
Second thatQuote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
Third that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinizter
What're we talking about?
fourth that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
- people avoiding the issue
Fifth thatQuote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
You're condescending and consider yourself better than others. At least I'm not prejudice against atheists/agnostics
so which half of that statement is true then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer