Page 47 of 245

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 pm
by Thuzbekistan
Forestavia wrote:
Thuzbekistan wrote:Ah, you're just ignoring parts of the bible that explicitly state the separation, then. But it also sounds like you're not Christian either, so that helps explain it.

I also think you are severely misunderstanding the nature of the Trinity.


I don't call myself anything anymore. God is huge. God is much bigger than me or the Christian worldview, or any worldview for that matter. My understanding of the Trinity is that it is a form of idolatry (Exodus 20). We are not to create a graven image of God. It doesn't matter whether the image is a form in our minds or whether it is a carving in wood. The Trinity is a Father, Son, Holy Spirit concept. A concept is a thought with form. So the Holy Trinity has created a stumbling block for many Christians because they are expected to hold onto a graven image of God in their minds. As Lao Tzu has written, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." The ancient Jews didn't even want to write the name of God on a piece of paper. We went from an attitude of sanctifying the very name of God thousands of years ago to a Trinitarian graven image concept in the 21st century.

If that's what you believe.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:29 pm
by Internationalist Bastard
Forestavia wrote:
Thuzbekistan wrote:Ah, you're just ignoring parts of the bible that explicitly state the separation, then. But it also sounds like you're not Christian either, so that helps explain it.

I also think you are severely misunderstanding the nature of the Trinity.


I don't call myself anything anymore. God is huge. God is much bigger than me or the Christian worldview, or any worldview for that matter. My understanding of the Trinity is that it is a form of idolatry (Exodus 20). We are not to create a graven image of God. It doesn't matter whether the image is a form in our minds or whether it is a carving in wood. The Trinity is a Father, Son, Holy Spirit concept. A concept is a thought with form. So the Holy Trinity has created a stumbling block for many Christians because they are expected to hold onto a graven image of God in their minds. As Lao Tzu has written, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." The ancient Jews didn't even want to write the name of God on a piece of paper. We went from an attitude of sanctifying the very name of God thousands of years ago to a Trinitarian graven image concept in the 21st century.

Tengriism says that we can’t possibly sure about matters of god so we may as well just live and let live

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:11 pm
by Dogmeat
Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Forestavia wrote:
I don't call myself anything anymore. God is huge. God is much bigger than me or the Christian worldview, or any worldview for that matter. My understanding of the Trinity is that it is a form of idolatry (Exodus 20). We are not to create a graven image of God. It doesn't matter whether the image is a form in our minds or whether it is a carving in wood. The Trinity is a Father, Son, Holy Spirit concept. A concept is a thought with form. So the Holy Trinity has created a stumbling block for many Christians because they are expected to hold onto a graven image of God in their minds. As Lao Tzu has written, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." The ancient Jews didn't even want to write the name of God on a piece of paper. We went from an attitude of sanctifying the very name of God thousands of years ago to a Trinitarian graven image concept in the 21st century.

Tengriism says that we can’t possibly sure about matters of god so we may as well just live and let live

Well, live and let live... or massacre half of Asia. Whichever suits you.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:32 pm
by The Blaatschapen
Australian rePublic wrote:
The blAAtschApen wrote:
I don't need to poke holes in your faith.

If it gives you strength, go for it. Just don't sell it to me, I'm not buying :p

You've done nothing but try to debunk religion this whole, and now you don't want to any more?


There is a difference between faith and religion ;)

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 pm
by Cekoviu
Australian rePublic wrote:
Uan aa Boa wrote:If we found the same things in another text of the period that came from one of the many Ancient Near Eastern religions that are no longer practised we wouldn't bat an eyelid. We'd just say that evidently the Assyrians (or whatever) believed their holy men had the ability to curse their enemies. It's only problematic because a descendent of this religion still exists, so we feel that this particular ancient text must in some way be read so as to be compatible with 21st century ethics.

No. The problem is reading the Bible in English. Until you study Ancient Greek/Hebrew, until you study ancient Greek/Hebrew figures of speech, until you vigerously debate the contents of the Bible with other scholars who studied the ancient languages, then you can not claim that you know more than they do. I'll give you an example.
It says that during Noah's flood, it rained for 40 days and forty nights. That was NEVER meant to be taken literally. "40 days and 40 nights" is a Hebrew expression meaning a "really long time". The equivalent would be writing an English version of the Bible and saying that it was "raining cats and dogs". Sure, no English speaker will picture cats and dogs falling from the sky, but it won't translate well

I don't think that's a really great example though, because people remotely knowledgeable about the history of the Bible should know that that phrase is an idiom -- even those who don't speak Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew. But I do agree that it can be fruitless to argue for or against the Bible interpreting the English direct translation as literal.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:34 pm
by Cekoviu
Australian rePublic wrote:
The blAAtschApen wrote:
I don't need to poke holes in your faith.

If it gives you strength, go for it. Just don't sell it to me, I'm not buying :p

You've done nothing but try to debunk religion this whole, and now you don't want to any more?

Faith is me saying I believe that wet dogs smell good.
Religion is a bunch of people sticking their noses into wet dog fur and saying that nobody would dislike doing so.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:57 pm
by The Free Joy State
Australian rePublic wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:So why didn't god send it down?

I don't know. Ask Him...
Australian rePublic wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:That excuse really doesn't wash. There are countless suffering people throughout history that God should have seen fit to kill before they suffered later in life, but didn't. Why?

I don't know. Ask Him

Seeking minds can have a faith. And the answer "Ask Him" -- or "read the Bible; everything you need to know is in there" -- can start to push people back from faith and into agnosticism.

I've held my beliefs (not a religion; I don't like organised religion), pretty steadily, for nearly a decade.

But if anything makes me question it, it will be that the strongest believers' answers are much less convincing to me.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:41 pm
by Novo Vaticanus
The Free Joy State wrote:But if anything makes me question it, it will be that the strongest believers' answers are much less convincing to me.

What about believers who will give you reasonable and informed answers for every belief that they may have?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:08 am
by The Free Joy State
Novo Vaticanus wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:But if anything makes me question it, it will be that the strongest believers' answers are much less convincing to me.

What about believers who will give you reasonable and informed answers for every belief that they may have?

Please be aware that I'm also not shopping for a new faith.

Having read the thread in its entirety, and on the subject of answers on the subject of faith, I'm just going to return to this post (it was a couple of days ago, but bear with me):

Novo Vaticanus wrote:Well actually, the Catholic Church is the single largest provider of charity on the entire planet. It's very much a part of the mission of the faith to feed the poor, visit the sick, clothe the naked, etc.

Also the world's biggest corporation. They spend $171,600,000,000 a year and just 2.7% on charity (they spend more on accounting -- 6%).*

EDIT: Excuse me: the $171,600,000,000 a year was international expenditure, while the 2.7% of expenditure was local. The Catholics themselves report up to 4 billion (or 4,000,000,000 of their income spent on international charitable endeavours -- still doesn't seem like much of that figure). Apparently, that's 2.3%

Novo Vaticanus wrote:And yeah, of course lasting happiness can only be found in the faith man!

By "the faith", I guess you mean your faith?

That said, having a faith of my own, I could cite at least half-a-dozen cases of people with no faith at all who were definitely very happy -- probably moreso than me.

Novo Vaticanus wrote:It's the only thing that satisfies the eudaemonic desire in us to be a part of something much, much bigger than ourselves.

Working with charities, doing community work, volunteerism would all do the same things.

Novo Vaticanus wrote:Pursuing money, fame, glory, and material gratification are all temporary ways of being satisfied, and they don't really hit that spot in our soul, you know? That's why the people who surround themselves with that stuff are often times the most miserable people on the planet.

Agreed. But it's not either faith, or being a materialistic git.

I've met many atheists who care a lot about other people, and many Christians who care only about appearing to be holy.

These arguments are largely emotion-based. While faith is an emotional subject for many, emotion-based arguments fail to convince wavering believers. Going for the hard-sell ("my way or Hell") approach also won't convince.

Really religious people might get further with equivocal religious people if they cultivated a more "live and let live" approach.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:12 am
by Ausinia
The Free Joy State wrote:These arguments are largely emotion-based. While faith is an emotional subject for many, emotion-based arguments fail to convince wavering believers. Going for the hard-sell ("my way or Hell") approach also won't convince.

Really religious people might get further with equivocal religious people if they cultivated a more "live and let live" approach.

This it for me. I’m surrounded by many Christian friends and the more I question my faith, the less hard reasons based on facts I see, and while I do have an emotional side (thankfully), I don’t believe it should be the entire reason for my faith in an afterlife, or any life at all.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:16 am
by Thuzbekistan
The Free Joy State wrote:
Novo Vaticanus wrote:What about believers who will give you reasonable and informed answers for every belief that they may have?

Please be aware that I'm also not shopping for a new faith.

Having read the thread in its entirety, and on the subject of answers on the subject of faith, I'm just going to return to this post (it was a couple of days ago, but bear with me):

Novo Vaticanus wrote:Well actually, the Catholic Church is the single largest provider of charity on the entire planet. It's very much a part of the mission of the faith to feed the poor, visit the sick, clothe the naked, etc.

Also the world's biggest corporation. They spend $171,600,000,000 a year and just 2.7% on charity (they spend more on accounting -- 6%).*

EDIT: Excuse me: the $171,600,000,000 a year was international expenditure, while the 2.7% of expenditure was local. The Catholics themselves report up to 4 billion (or 4,000,000,000 of their income spent on international charitable endeavours -- still doesn't seem like much of that figure). Apparently, that's 2.3%

Novo Vaticanus wrote:And yeah, of course lasting happiness can only be found in the faith man!

By "the faith", I guess you mean your faith?

That said, having a faith of my own, I could cite at least half-a-dozen cases of people with no faith at all who were definitely very happy -- probably moreso than me.

Novo Vaticanus wrote:It's the only thing that satisfies the eudaemonic desire in us to be a part of something much, much bigger than ourselves.

Working with charities, doing community work, volunteerism would all do the same things.

Novo Vaticanus wrote:Pursuing money, fame, glory, and material gratification are all temporary ways of being satisfied, and they don't really hit that spot in our soul, you know? That's why the people who surround themselves with that stuff are often times the most miserable people on the planet.

Agreed. But it's not either faith, or being a materialistic git.

I've met many atheists who care a lot about other people, and many Christians who care only about appearing to be holy.

These arguments are largely emotion-based. While faith is an emotional subject for many, emotion-based arguments fail to convince wavering believers. Going for the hard-sell ("my way or Hell") approach also won't convince.

Really religious people might get further with equivocal religious people if they cultivated a more "live and let live" approach.

The whole "of 7 billion people alive now, only 1.8 billion are going to heaven and the rest to hell" is what drove me away from christianity once I read about other religions and figured out that non Christians arent the spawn of the devil.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:56 am
by The Free Joy State
Ausinia wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:These arguments are largely emotion-based. While faith is an emotional subject for many, emotion-based arguments fail to convince wavering believers. Going for the hard-sell ("my way or Hell") approach also won't convince.

Really religious people might get further with equivocal religious people if they cultivated a more "live and let live" approach.

This it for me. I’m surrounded by many Christian friends and the more I question my faith, the less hard reasons based on facts I see, and while I do have an emotional side (thankfully), I don’t believe it should be the entire reason for my faith in an afterlife, or any life at all.

I agree. It's not that I don't have an emotional side (and it's almost certainly partly responsible for my faith).

But human beings are thinking creatures. And I find that when questions that ask for logic are answered with feeling and the same old "because I/God/the Bible said so" party-lines, it does make me feel less aligned with the (non-denominational) faith I've been comfortable with my whole adult life.

For me, things need either fact or the permission to seek available information. Shutting down fact and discussion thereof (just saying: "It is. End of. Accept or burn in hell")… that just pushes me away.

A life that requires me to not search or question doesn't seem like my full life. For that reason alone, there's definitely more to life than belief.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:57 am
by The Blaatschapen
Thuzbekistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:Please be aware that I'm also not shopping for a new faith.

Having read the thread in its entirety, and on the subject of answers on the subject of faith, I'm just going to return to this post (it was a couple of days ago, but bear with me):


Also the world's biggest corporation. They spend $171,600,000,000 a year and just 2.7% on charity (they spend more on accounting -- 6%).*

EDIT: Excuse me: the $171,600,000,000 a year was international expenditure, while the 2.7% of expenditure was local. The Catholics themselves report up to 4 billion (or 4,000,000,000 of their income spent on international charitable endeavours -- still doesn't seem like much of that figure). Apparently, that's 2.3%


By "the faith", I guess you mean your faith?

That said, having a faith of my own, I could cite at least half-a-dozen cases of people with no faith at all who were definitely very happy -- probably moreso than me.


Working with charities, doing community work, volunteerism would all do the same things.


Agreed. But it's not either faith, or being a materialistic git.

I've met many atheists who care a lot about other people, and many Christians who care only about appearing to be holy.

These arguments are largely emotion-based. While faith is an emotional subject for many, emotion-based arguments fail to convince wavering believers. Going for the hard-sell ("my way or Hell") approach also won't convince.

Really religious people might get further with equivocal religious people if they cultivated a more "live and let live" approach.

The whole "of 7 billion people alive now, only 1.8 billion are going to heaven and the rest to hell" is what drove me away from christianity once I read about other religions and figured out that non Christians arent the spawn of the devil.


:(

My ancestry is denied again!

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:17 am
by Tasuirin
The blAAtschApen wrote:
Thuzbekistan wrote:The whole "of 7 billion people alive now, only 1.8 billion are going to heaven and the rest to hell" is what drove me away from christianity once I read about other religions and figured out that non Christians arent the spawn of the devil.


:(

My ancestry is denied again!

SomethingsomethingsomethingSHEEP DON'T GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SOULSsomething...

Is what someone, uh... Might say...

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:19 am
by The Blaatschapen
Tasuirin wrote:
The blAAtschApen wrote:
:(

My ancestry is denied again!

SomethingsomethingsomethingSHEEP DON'T GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SOULSsomething...

Is what someone, uh... Might say...


We do go to heaven. We receive the Lord's graze.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:21 am
by Tasuirin
The blAAtschApen wrote:
Tasuirin wrote:SomethingsomethingsomethingSHEEP DON'T GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SOULSsomething...

Is what someone, uh... Might say...


We do go to heaven. We receive the Lord's graze.

...
I have to applaud you on that one...

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:23 am
by Ausinia
The Free Joy State wrote:
Ausinia wrote:This it for me. I’m surrounded by many Christian friends and the more I question my faith, the less hard reasons based on facts I see, and while I do have an emotional side (thankfully), I don’t believe it should be the entire reason for my faith in an afterlife, or any life at all.

I agree. It's not that I don't have an emotional side (and it's almost certainly partly responsible for my faith).

But human beings are thinking creatures. And I find that when questions that ask for logic are answered with feeling and the same old "because I/God/the Bible said so" party-lines, it does make me feel less aligned with the (non-denominational) faith I've been comfortable with my whole adult life.

For me, things need either fact or the permission to seek available information. Shutting down fact and discussion thereof (just saying: "It is. End of. Accept or burn in hell")… that just pushes me away.

A life that requires me to not search or question doesn't seem like my full life. For that reason alone, there's definitely more to life than belief.
Definitely. From my experience, it also seems that those types of people who are the most hypocritical about their religion. The same people think it’s acceptable to say ‘no abortion, those people are terrible and are killers’ and then say ‘we follow the bible’ and ‘we accept all’. I guess logic and hypocrisy are the things that find me without a religion or deity to follow. I accept and follow my own views, I’m not saying yours are wrong, I believe that mine are right

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:25 am
by An Alan Smithee Nation
The blAAtschApen wrote:
Tasuirin wrote:SomethingsomethingsomethingSHEEP DON'T GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SOULSsomething...

Is what someone, uh... Might say...


We do go to heaven. We receive the Lord's graze.


It's the goats I feel sorry for.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:33 am
by FelrikTheDeleted
>thread about religion on NSG
>the site full of pseuds and shit
Well, can’t say I wasn’t expecting this to be wild ride.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:20 am
by SD_Film Artists
Agnostic and spiritualist (with a small 's'), here. I believe in a higher power but it's difficult to follow any of the large organised religions as there doesn't seem to be any one reason to believe in one over the other besides where you're born.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:22 am
by Salandriagado
Australian rePublic wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Let me add additional things, since you think the bible is inaccurate at best, why do you believe in any part of it, Why are you a Christian?

I do NOT think it's inaccurate. I never said it was innaccurate. What I said was is that it's difficult to translate it properly


You realise that the things that we're criticising are in the original-language copies as well, right?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:23 am
by Salandriagado
Australian rePublic wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:

This says nothing about translation, it talks about being written in human languages based on how people where perceiving god. And the fact that humans are not infallible is an indirect way of saying that they could have written something wrong.

Are there any errors in the Bible? Probably, but if there are, they would be tiny and irrelevant


You are factually wrong. In particular, the facts that there was never any kind of global flood, nor any period of time in which the human population was exactly 2, nor any Exodus, are all pretty damning.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:26 am
by Salandriagado
Novo Vaticanus wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:But if anything makes me question it, it will be that the strongest believers' answers are much less convincing to me.

What about believers who will give you reasonable and informed answers for every belief that they may have?


Haven't come across one yet. In particular, the existence of such a person implies a logically consistent deity, and there aren't any, other than deist ones, and deists don't tend to be gnostic.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:44 am
by The New California Republic
Salandriagado wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Are there any errors in the Bible? Probably, but if there are, they would be tiny and irrelevant


You are factually wrong. In particular, the facts that there was never any kind of global flood, nor any period of time in which the human population was exactly 2, nor any Exodus, are all pretty damning.

I showed him the link to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible earlier, that features these gems and many more. I sometimes read it to have a good laugh.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:55 am
by Page
Ausinia wrote:Definitely. From my experience, it also seems that those types of people who are the most hypocritical about their religion. The same people think it’s acceptable to say ‘no abortion, those people are terrible and are killers’ and then say ‘we follow the bible’ and ‘we accept all’. I guess logic and hypocrisy are the things that find me without a religion or deity to follow. I accept and follow my own views, I’m not saying yours are wrong, I believe that mine are right


Funny how you mentioned abortion, cause the Bible is pro-abortion.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

If a man suspects his wife is pregnant by another man, he shall bring his wife to a priest. The priest will have her drink "bitter water" and put a curse on her. If she has been faithful and is pregnant by her husband, her baby will be fine, but if the baby is someone else's, she'll miscarry. God will strike down an innocent fetus for the sins of its mother. The Bible is very clear here that a fetus conceived by adultery should die.