Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[Snorri1234]

Indeed. Are those wedded under different religious traditions married? Surely thats just as wrong as homosexuality in that case...

Are you addressing me?

(whether this promise is made with belief in God or not, in a Church, Synagogue or Mosque)

I did make a provision for this case, but Ill admit my post wasnt very graphologically pleasing so youmay have skim read (I dont blame you, after along day im sure all do).

And Hindus?

yeah, ok, but Im not going to go through every religion in the world,I have better things to do, and my main pointis understood.

So why is it that a blessing from a false god is better than not a blessing at all?

[Napoleon Ier]

It isnt.

Marriage is the only sacrament which does not require anyone butthose receiving it to perform it (though techinically it isnt a sacrament for non-Christians, but it still doesnt require an external person other than God) They may do it under the auspices of an invented deity, but if they genuinly promise the above criteria, then it is a marriage (even if only Baptized Christians have a sacramental one). God will endorse it, whether they are aware of that ot not.

However as lots of these denominations tend not to make these promises but rather endorse polygamy, unless they forego that in favor of a single partner, it isnt a marriage (religiously) and can be seen as just ordinary relationship.

[Guiscard]

So let me get this straight:

Christian, or more specifically CATHOLIC marriage is the only true marriage...

You're being very confusing at the minute... Just want to get the above statement straight.

[Spockers]

butthose

Never heard of that particular type of hose before... but whatever floats your boat.

[Napoleon Ier]

So let me get this straight:

Christian, or more specifically CATHOLIC marriage is the only true marriage...

You're being very confusing at the minute... Just want to get the above statement straight.

The Catholic conception of it,
but non-Catholics can get married according to that conception without realising it (i.e they take the marriage vows, pronouncing them or agreeing on ones similar broadly to the Christian ones)

[Napoleon Ier]

because in civil marriage under the civil code (in France anyway) leads onto right to adopt.

Otherwise, if it dosent in the Great US of A's Code, fine, have civil "marriage", I dont believe it is one, as outlined, but yeah, knock yourselves out...

This post seems to indicate you don't believe a civil marriage is a real marriage...

It isnt.

So basically, my dictionary is false?

no just it refers to what is called a civil marriage, which I believe is not a valid one,just a legal recognition.

A forced marriage could be legal in a civil sense in various law codes around the world, but I still dont recognise t as an actual marriage.
idem for "gay marriage". Since Idont really believe it is one and I I dont mind them having any rights other than the one to adopt, Im not bothered particlarlyabout gay "marriage" (though I certainly am about forced "marriage")

[Napoleon Ier]

butthose

Never heard of that particular type of hose before... but whatever floats your boat.

where TF did I write that???

[Guiscard]

So let me get this straight:

Christian, or more specifically CATHOLIC marriage is the only true marriage...

You're being very confusing at the minute... Just want to get the above statement straight.

The Catholic conception of it,
but non-Catholics can get married according to that conception without realising it (i.e they take the marriage vows, pronouncing them or agreeing on ones similar broadly to the Christian ones)

Again, not quite understanding you...

So are protestant Christians who marry in church valid?

What about Jews who marry in a synagogue?

[Napoleon Ier]

So let me get this straight:

Christian, or more specifically CATHOLIC marriage is the only true marriage...

You're being very confusing at the minute... Just want to get the above statement straight.

The Catholic conception of it,
but non-Catholics can get married according to that conception without realising it (i.e they take the marriage vows, pronouncing them or agreeing on ones similar broadly to the Christian ones)

Again, not quite understanding you...

So are protestant Christians who marry in church valid?

What about Jews who marry in a synagogue?

sorry. I dont make myself easy to understand but bear with me.


So.

Think of a chemical reaction, say glucose being converted to ethanol (fermentation). We are today aware that the enzyme zymase catalyses a reaction that causes glucose to form ethanol and water, though, a few millenia back, it was "magic", or "act of the gods". Similarily a Catholic knows a marriage is a spiritual bond made by God, even if others think Shiva or Vichnu or Allah are behind it.

Admittedly the analogy is far from perfect, marriage is certainly slightly more subtle. You may "react" man and man thinking you'll get a marriage, though the products of this reaction being spiritual (sacraments are outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace) they are less easy to observe, soyou may not at all have succesfully "married" anyone.

However, you may again, have man and woman, and provide the right conditions (they both consent to fidelity, lifelong union, love of each other, and attemptto procreate), but not realise you actually have a marriage (parpaillots, some Muslims and Jews etc...).

The analogy is pretty shit, but at Midnight on a wednesday after chemistry prep its best I can do. Sorry.

[Snorri1234]

no just it refers to what is called a civil marriage, which I believe is not a valid one,just a legal recognition.

A forced marriage could be legal in a civil sense in various law codes around the world, but I still dont recognise t as an actual marriage.
idem for "gay marriage". Since Idont really believe it is one and I I dont mind them having any rights other than the one to adopt, Im not bothered particlarlyabout gay "marriage" (though I certainly am about forced "marriage")

Why do you have to type "marriage"? It's just a frigging word!
I understand you don't mean marriage in the religious sense, but that does not mean a marriage that is not religious is not, in fact, a marriage.

Why are you not advocating against the usage of the word marriage by people who only have a civil marriage?

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi Neo,

*Deep breath* Okay so far you don't seem to be listening to what I have posted. Here is what I mean by that.

An everlasting, loving God could rightly look upon a scene of suffering as a temporary thing knowing that the sufferer will soon be with him and given the greatest of solice. That does not imply that he creates or enjoys anyone's suffering. It only shows that he knows, without any doubt, the joy that is just around the corner for that person.

I really don't see that in what you said. You said "... God does not step in because those being oppressed will gain more for having suffered and those who oppress are still his creations and must be given the chance to repent."

I underlined and bolded the operative word to point out what I said (since you quoted me). Please point out how that could be construed as in any way speaking about what Christians should do. Christians are called upon to love our neighbors as ourselves. Yes, we may have excuses for not doing it, but if we don't it's disobedience. No apathy allowed. No laziness tolerated. That's one of the two commandments of Christianity. Period.

We aren't talking about God knowing that joy is coming or that he enjoys suffering or anything like that. You are asserting that sufferers are gaining from their suffering. I don't care if God intends it or not or if he gives a shit about them or not or if they will be relieved of their suffering or not. You said that those who have suffered will gain from it. And, again, I really hope that is not what you think.

Yes, it was exactly what we were talking about. The only confusion came when you persisted in presuming that I'd stated it was okay for Christians, but I'll tell you what. Look back and see if you can quote me saying or intimating that the above quote is okay for Christians, and I'll recant.

I think that idea is just as likely a symptom of greed. The people who ascribe to it might well find another justification for their lack of charity if that one weren't available to them. Can you really say that atheists don't come up with excuses for their shortcomings like everyone else seems to?

I don't have any shortcomings so I wouldn't know. The thing is, religious people don't see their justifications as an excuse per se. An atheist who says he or she can't afford to send monetary aid to a charity is making an excuse if he or she actually can afford it. However, a Christian in the same situation might pray for people and let God handle it. What's the difference? The Christian actually believes that they are helping. But prayer is a whole different topic altogether. Short answer: yes we all make excuses. I'd rather my excuses be based on empirical evidence that can be proven to be an excuse. I can afford it or I can't.

Regardless of what you think its based on, an excuse is still an excuse. Not to mention that you're starting to tell me what religious people think and see. You're not omniscienct are you? You would have to be to presume to know the thoughts and motives of such a large group of people.

When death comes it will either be a joyous event (Heaven) or merely a cessation of life (Ooops, you guys were right!??!). I can't see that anyone would be particularly afraid of either of those options. Why do you think I am?

I don't think you are. It's a common theme, and I wanted a Christian opinion. I don't want to die. Thatwould suck. A lot of people (Christian and otherwise) agree with me. I was just curious.

Okay here is my opinion. I enjoy my walk of faith and the wisdom and beauty I see in life as a Christian. An afterlife is either for gain (because I've rightly put my faith in God's love) or its for nothing (because there isn't one). Either way it doesn't matter because I am pursuing a life that is fulfilling with people whom I love, respect and admire. It might be Paschal's wager, but it isn't "bollocks" (love the word) because my life is being lived without dwelling on death.

If this means that you agree with me on all points except that Christians shouldn't be of the mindset that suffering is acceptable for anyone, then I'd say we are in perfect agreement since I never said that they should.

I wouldn't say I agree with you (I'm an atheist, obnoxious is what I do), but this is the closest I've gotten to getting you to take back your quote...

Once again, there isn't much point in taking back something I never said. Reexamine your interpretation of it and you'll see that I've stated repeatedly that Christians are expected, commanded, and in most cases happy to help others. Did ya' ever Google Christian Charities? Lot's of 'em. I don't think Uganda went from 4% Christian to 96% Christian in one hundred years because the Christians there were lazy or apathetic.

[Mr_Adams]

I underlined and bolded the operative word to point out what I said (since you quoted me). Please point out how that could be construed as in any way speaking about what Christians should do. Christians are called upon to love our neighbors as ourselves. Yes, we may have excuses for not doing it, but if we don't it's disobedience. No apathy allowed. No laziness tolerated. That's one of the two commandments of Christianity. Period.

Just wondering what you meant by that last sentence. "Two commandments of christianity"? There are atleast 11.

[CrazyAnglican]

As I understand it the basis of the faith is that there are two commandments (New Testament).

"Love the lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and all thy spirit"

and

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"

on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets

It's from the Anglican liturgy, and might or might not be part of your service. There are other commandments certainly, but these are the big two (The ten commandments being Old Testment and shared with Judaism). It doesn't mean the other can be ignored. Just that this should be the focus.

[Neoteny]

These long posts kill me... we need to sort this out soon...

Yeah, yeah, ccusa.org has a list of 81 charities. We have proven the existence of Christian charity!

I underlined and bolded the operative word to point out what I said (since you quoted me). Please point out how that could be construed as in any way speaking about what Christians should do. Christians are called upon to love our neighbors as ourselves. Yes, we may have excuses for not doing it, but if we don't it's disobedience. No apathy allowed. No laziness tolerated. That's one of the two commandments of Christianity. Period.

I've already stated that not all Christians feel that way, and I didn't intend to imply that your quote should be what Christians should do. I'll repeat myself (we both keep doing this and it's not getting us anywhere) regardless of who or what the quote applies to, it is reprehensible to think that suffering of any kind leads directly to personal gain. It is, for sure, disgusting in humans, and it is also disgusting when attributed to god. I'm really glad you feel that you should alleviate suffering. But you think your god (admittedly in his omniscience) thinks that suffering can be to the good of the sufferer. Since religious conservatives (not implying you are, you wascally Anglican you) tend to love slippery slope arguments, I'll frame it this way: if it's good enough for god, why isn't it good enough for the average Christian? He thinks suffering can be good, so what's stopping the average Joe from leaning on his superstition to justify inaction (again, not attacking your charity, only the way you are expressing it). I don't know what else to say. I'm all out of rhetoric. The preceding italics applies to this as well:

Yes, it was exactly what we were talking about. The only confusion came when you persisted in presuming that I'd stated it was okay for Christians, but I'll tell you what. Look back and see if you can quote me saying or intimating that the above quote is okay for Christians, and I'll recant.

You didn't say it. You think that's what god thinks. Either way, suffering is not good.

Not to mention that you're starting to tell me what religious people think and see. You're not omniscienct are you?

I said they might pray. I'm not telling you I know how every religious person thinks. I'm using prayer as an example. I used to be religious. I know how I thought. I wasn't aloof to the feelings of others, and I know that most people are not. But some are, even if it is contrary to their faith. Regardless of what was intended by god, or whatever man wrote his script, it is all too easy to justify this lack of empathy with religion. "Suffering can be good" is one example of that mindset. Chalk it up as another reason I despise it.

[silvanricky]

As I understand it the basis of the faith is that there are two commandments (New Testament).

"Love the lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and all thy spirit"

and

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"

on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets

Alright, I always thought there were 10 commandments, but let's say you are right. There are 2 basic commandments that involve love. What I have a problem with is loving people who are assholes. To be fair, the leader of your religion practiced love towards everyone at least as far as I know. He actually practiced what he preached.

I know that sounds cold but how could I ever love a murderer or a sex offender?

[MR. Nate]

Christ pretty clearly states that the two most important commandments are the two that anglican mentioned. (Mt 22:37-38, Mk 12:30-31) The revolutionary part of Christianity is not the "Love your neighbor" part, it's Jesus' definition of neighbor. Luke 10 indicates that every person you come in contact with, even evil people who hate you, fall within the category of neighbor, and before God you have a responsibility to love them. As for the "How" part, well, it's got to be supernatural.

[daddy1gringo]

I agree with Nuetrino. If a god irrefutably showed himself to the entire world today, I and everyone else on the planet would worship that god. How could we not? If your god did this, I would even out pray you.

Everyone would become Christian (or some wild variation thereof). Therefore they would all be eligible for entrance to heaven and so god can be happy that it saved the souls of a huge percentage of the population.

Isn't that it's objective?

Would they then love him? Would you?

Love? What would be the reasoning? Simply because it exists and after millennia chose to show itself, everyone should just automatically love it?

Respect and Obey perhaps, but I doubt seriously everyone would fall madly in love with the creature that created disease...that allowed loved ones to suffer, that stood idly by as the world was at war and let children die of hunger.

I would bow & serve...because that's what you do when all powerful, supernatural gods show themselves. But I doubt I would love it. It's hard to say...never having seen an actual supernatural god.

So according to you, If God “showed himself” as you think he should, what he would get as a result would be thousands, or millions, more people mentally acknowledging his existence and going through “Christian” rituals out of obligation, because they think they should, but still not loving him.

You can trust me on this; if he wanted that, he’s already got more of it then he could ever figure out what to do with. The churches are filled (especially on Christmas and Easter) with people who go because they believe they must, but don’t want to be there because they have no real relationship with Jesus; because they don’t love him.

And according to you, you would reluctantly bow and serve something that you hate, simply because you were trapped and had no choice. No wonder you won’t believe in him. I don’t blame you one bit. What a dismal prospect. I wouldn’t do that either.

There’s your answer to why he doesn’t do that. That is NOT what he wants, from you or from the world. No, his purpose is not to crowd more people into churches or to force some certain kind of behavior. He’s all about relationship. Always has been. He’s a hopeless romantic.

We’ve been over and over the theology of suffering in the world, and to what degree, though he is “pantokrator” there are things he “can not do” by definition, because if you force a “choice” it is not a “choice”, and so with “love” and with “will”; and how all that is happening is necessary for a greater good, when he will wipe away every tear, when all the suffering of this world will seem like a small thing set against the joy he has prepared. You don’t believe it, nor MeDeFe, Neutrino, Neoteny, and others, and I don’t blame you. You don’t know him. When you know him, know his character, all the issues work themselves out, because you know what he is capable of, and what he is not.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to know that he is real, but there are two ways to do that. One is with your hands on your hips, demanding that he jump through your hoops like a trained dog. Be honest, if you were him you wouldn’t comply with that either. After all, if he does exist, he’s God and you’re not. Besides, by your own words, there’s nothing in it for him or for you anyway. If he exists, he’s not stupid.

The other way is to tell him in humility that if he will reveal himself to you, he’s the boss and you will be and do what he wants. You would find that he would reveal himself to you in your heart, since the intellect is inconclusive anyway, and in the part of you that is made in his image, a light bulb would go on and say, “This is right.” You would find that what he wants is just to let him love you and to learn to know him and to trust his love for you. You would find that it is the greatest of joys.

Much more to say, but let me get this posted.

[silvanricky]

Christ pretty clearly states that the two most important commandments are the two that anglican mentioned. (Mt 22:37-38, Mk 12:30-31) The revolutionary part of Christianity is not the "Love your neighbor" part, it's Jesus' definition of neighbor. Luke 10 indicates that every person you come in contact with, even evil people who hate you, fall within the category of neighbor, and before God you have a responsibility to love them. As for the "How" part, well, it's got to be supernatural.

Then how do you obtain this supernatural power to love people who are evil? You can't expect me to just say that I love people like Osama Bin Laden, Tim McVeigh, or Charles Manson. Do you love them?

[Backglass]

First, thank you for answering.

So according to you, If God “showed himself” as you think he should, what he would get as a result would be thousands, or millions, more people mentally acknowledging his existence and going through “Christian” rituals out of obligation, because they think they should, but still not loving him.

No. I am saying that you wouldn't just automatically start "loving" this supernatural being, simply because he finally showed up. If your father left your mother when you were a baby, and then showed up 40 years later, would you just blindly love him?

he’s already got more of it then he could ever figure out what to do with. The churches are filled (especially on Christmas and Easter) with people who go because they believe they must, but don’t want to be there because they have no real relationship with Jesus; because they don’t love him.

I agree 100%. In fact I believe this is 90% of the church going population if not more.

However THOSE 90% probably WOULD love him instantly if he popped in. It sure would be an easy way to get the whole "flock" to snap to attention. Don't you think?

And according to you, you would reluctantly bow and serve something that you hate, simply because you were trapped and had no choice. No wonder you won’t believe in him. I don’t blame you one bit. What a dismal prospect. I wouldn’t do that either.

First, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't hate gods. I just don't think gods exist. Why do you hate Leprechauns? (gotta throw that in!)

Why do you find it so sad that I wouldn't fall madly in love with something I have never seen before? I don't see how that is rational at all. If Leprechauns showed themselves, would you fall madly in love with them?

Faced with a real supernatural entity I believe that every human on the planet would bow & serve, regardless of how they feel. I said I don't know how exactly I would honestly feel, as I have never seen a supernatural entity. If I did see one however, I would certainly believe they exist.

There’s your answer to why he doesn’t do that. That is NOT what he wants, from you or from the world. No, his purpose is not to crowd more people into churches or to force some certain kind of behavior. He’s all about relationship. Always has been. He’s a hopeless romantic.

No answers there. Thats YOU excusing away why your gods haven't been seen in 2000 years. Besides...I thought it's purpose was to save everyone from hell and get us all to love it. No? You would think it would do whatever it could to make that happen. Yet it doesn't.

You call it free will. I call it non-existance.

We’ve been over and over the theology of suffering in the world, and to what degree, though he is “pantokrator” there are things he “can not do” by definition, because if you force a “choice” it is not a “choice”, and so with “love” and with “will”; and how all that is happening is necessary for a greater good, when he will wipe away every tear, when all the suffering of this world will seem like a small thing set against the joy he has prepared.

Glorious words and excuses for a superstition. It certainly is complicated for a all powerful all knowing supernatural being. All these rules. It cant do this or it wont do that. Men have come up with these excuses over the centuries to explain away the nagging questions and shut up the people asking them.

You don’t believe it, nor MeDeFe, Neutrino, Neoteny, and others, and I don’t blame you. You don’t know him. When you know him, know his character, all the issues work themselves out, because you know what he is capable of, and what he is not.

No. You don't "know" any supernatural beings. Christians freely use the word instead of "study" or "devote". You have simply released your mind from any burdens and pushed them off to "him". It must be a very free and liberating experience to just not care anymore. Unfortunately, it isn't reality. I would rather realize that the hurdles in life I must overcome are real and tackle them head on than push them aside and say "god will provide" and what ever will be, will be.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to know that he is real, but there are two ways to do that. One is with your hands on your hips, demanding that he jump through your hoops like a trained dog.

I am not demanding anything. I think all religions are nothing more than modern day superstitions. I really don't think it's too much to ask to actually SEE the person/thing/entity you are expected to blindly follow worship and devote your life too. I just don't work way way. I also read contracts before signing them and don't drive at night with my lights off. Call me crazy.

Be honest, if you were him you wouldn’t comply with that either. After all, if he does exist, he’s God and you’re not.

If I were a god I most certainly WOULD show myself. A god by definition is a ruler. If you are going to rule, people need to know who you are and what you are capable of. Not through stories and tales by the campfire. But by actually ruling. That's what gods do.

Besides, by your own words, there’s nothing in it for him or for you anyway. If he exists, he’s not stupid.

Exactly. Which is why I don't believe gods exist. Any of them. Gods don't hide in the shadows. God's don't kick back for 2000 years and just observe and do nothing. God's kick ass and take names. You are right, gods's are NOT stupid and if real, would make themselves known to their followers. Not through veiled visions or dreams. Not through 60 authors of stories. But PRESENCE in the here and now.

The other way is to tell him in humility that if he will reveal himself to you, he’s the boss and you will be and do what he wants. You would find that he would reveal himself to you in your heart, since the intellect is inconclusive anyway, and in the part of you that is made in his image, a light bulb would go on and say, “This is right.” You would find that what he wants is just to let him love you and to learn to know him and to trust his love for you. You would find that it is the greatest of joys.

I believe medical science someday will find the part of the brain used for religion. It certainly would explain a lot. Why some people become unquestioning devoted followers of (insert religion here) and others do not.

No offense, but TO ME the paragraph above sounds like the ramblings of a cultist. Feel free to use my oft-used Leprechaun analogy using the above paragraph...thats what it sounds like to me. When people say those things part of MY brain says "surely they can't REALLY be serious", yet it is obvious you are very serious.

I do have to say that how man creates, uses and succumbs to religion fascinates me. It is the ultimate social controller.

[Beastly]

Christ pretty clearly states that the two most important commandments are the two that anglican mentioned. (Mt 22:37-38, Mk 12:30-31) The revolutionary part of Christianity is not the "Love your neighbor" part, it's Jesus' definition of neighbor. Luke 10 indicates that every person you come in contact with, even evil people who hate you, fall within the category of neighbor, and before God you have a responsibility to love them. As for the "How" part, well, it's got to be supernatural.

Then how do you obtain this supernatural power to love people who are evil? You can't expect me to just say that I love people like Osama Bin Laden, Tim McVeigh, or Charles Manson. Do you love them?

Love the sinner, hate the sin!

[silvanricky]

Love the sinner, hate the sin!

I'm sorry but that's stupid. Hate what Timothy McVeigh did but love him personally!!!!

[Mr_Adams]

YES. many things taught by the bible are beyond human understanding. God is a perfect being, and he has a higher way of thinking.

[silvanricky]

YES. many things taught by the bible are beyond human understanding. God is a perfect being, and he has a higher way of thinking.

Is this addressed to me?

[Mr_Adams]

YES. many things taught by the bible are beyond human understanding. God is a perfect being, and he has a higher way of thinking.

Is this addressed to me?

Yes this message is addressed to you, and know this message is addressed to everyone.

[Blitzaholic]

I never read thru anything except the title, so sorry if already said, doubt it was





the questions asks why do you believe?



well, look at the world, mountains, space, planets, flowers, rainbows, sun, valley, peaks, etc, ask yourself this.





DO YOU SEE DESIGN?












anyone with any intelligence has to admit YES










wont you dont realize is by admitting this












if there is design, then there is a Designer--it's mandatory