Still reading the thread but I found this kind of odd. [ QUOTE ]
Amit Goswami
Before you read any further, stop and close your eyes for a moment. Now consider the following question: for the moment your eyes were closed, did the world still exist even though you weren't conscious of it? How do you know?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooo... the universe would cease to exist if everyone was rendered blind? It's like they are tackling the question "if a tree falls in the woods..." and instead of putting cameras in the woods & doing weekly surveys to document which trees are up and which are down. They take the approach, I'm not there so the forest doesn't exist? I can understand if they wanted to say the "discussion" is pointless since no one is there to gather evidence.
[ QUOTE ]
Goswami has done his math
[/ QUOTE ]Well, ok then. That does it I'm convinced. The article reads more like a justification for faith than scientific proof. If you have to justify your faith is it really faith or is it fear of being wrong? But maybe I'm wrong, maybe scientific fact is just all conjecture without research. I love how we can just click our heals close our eyes and wish something into concrete proof.
Does this guy even read his Christian manual? Faith, not scientific proof is the key. If you have faith you don't need scientific proof. If you have scientific proof you don't need faith. He brings the wrong message if he really is trying to do what a Christian should do.
Ok back to reading the thread, I'm sure you guys have some funny shit to say. Where's Per's post? This thread has been up for a while I'm sure it has descended into chaos by now.
i don't wanna change the topic of discussion here, but i'm just wondering what the most scientific religion is? Every word spoken by preachers is based on something that can actually happen, so that when it does, peoples' belief in that preacher and his religion would multiply. right? so im trying to figure out what the most 'plausible' religion is. Before u guys discuss this question of mine, try not to be offensive or defensive. We don't want a religious war over here lol.
the following might be an interesting read for some of you, especially if u have an interest in world religions [and the only surviving polytheistic religion in the world ].
Now, as i explain my point of view on this topic, keep in mind that i am indeed a non-believer, yet i tend to show a great interest in learning about all religions. I've read parts of the bible, some of the qu'ran and some of the Vedas and Gita. Upon asking a few questions, i've come to think that hinduism bases itself mostly on science:
1) we believe in what is called agnijanm and agnianth which translate into "birth by fire" and "death by fire." If u were hopped up on sugar and wanted to go crazy, you could explain that 'birth by fire' refers to the big bang, and _not_ god just saying 'boo-yaa! and then there was peoples!!'. As for "death by fire" that could easily refer to long term effects of global warming, or any other such events. [forest fires raging across the world causing a collapse of the food chain, or the good-old meteor theory re-enacted].
2) Gods were, to the hindu, just like us: people living on earth.and as such, they too had wars, babies, and sins among other things. They existed on this earth during one of the 7 [i think its 7] yugs [eras]. The yug in which they existed is called "satyug" [era of good things] and the era we are in now is called "kalyug," which means "an era in which bad things happen" ie. we're supposed to destroy the world with our sinning.
3) hindu gods were also the first to experiment with 'test-tube' babies, in the story of Ramayan [Ram is a test tube baby in a different sense].
4) Hindu gods ascended to their place in heavan due to the concept of nirvana. [i think at least?]
5) god's don't excercise much power anymore. Only do their duties. Brahma created, Vishnu guards, Shiva will destroy. The other gods like Ganga noursish us etc. etc. NOTE: shiva the destroyer is not a bad god. he is not neglected, and rather, is worshipped by Saivites in his two forms, Rudra and... something else. [yes Rudra like in Devil May Cry]. We have no concept of a 'bad god'. Ravan himself wasn't a bad god, just an evil ruler of the Lankans. He's just given 10 heads to signify that he had the intelligence of 10 men.
6) god's come to earth in various avatars [this word is actually from sanskrit "avataara" meaning "image of god on earth"] and only try to fix various errors of mankind.
hope u enjoyed learning a bit more about hinduism!
Probably Catholicism, as the Catholic church supports evolution, the big bang, etc.
Also, I think it is hard to validate how scientific a religion is by its text because most of them were written so long ago they hardly can relate to today's science.
The bible and its books (like genesis : the beginnings of earth) are written to be understood by even the most common of people, not just scientists or theologians. As such I find that the story of genesis does parallel scientific thinking in many ways. Science goes through the start of everything then the process of barren earth and water the life starting then eventually people walk the earth...the bible says basically the same things in the same sort of order as science. Sure then theres stuff about adam and eve and the fall of mankind into sin but thats a whole different debate as its more metaphorical and spiritual. Put simply mankind inherently sin , you me and everyone and that was the fall of mankind, it takes a loving God to save us and this world from what it has become because of us and our choice to serve ourselves.
A lot of people (including myself) think that the old testament is somewhat useless. When I went to Mexico about a month ago, the hotel's bibles were the new testament only. Also, when I went shopping at the Malecon in PV, they were only selling copies of the new testament.
This is exactly the reason why I don't think you can use the Bible as anything other than a safety blanket - you can't just "pick and choose" which parts absolutely must be true, and which parts are a bit nasty-and-weird-so-let's-skip-over-that... it entirely defeats the object of using it as a source of truth.
Dawkins makes a very good case for this in The God Delusion, well worth a read - he explains it far better than I can here.
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people (including myself) think that the old testament is somewhat useless. When I went to Mexico about a month ago, the hotel's bibles were the new testament only. Also, when I went shopping at the Malecon in PV, they were only selling copies of the new testament.
[/ QUOTE ]I'm not preaching or trying to woo anyone to "see the light". I can't even say I believe it myself but I can explain why the old testament is needed for Christianity to work, because it was explained to me. Of course I'm sure there are conflicting points of view and religions but for the majority of "Christians" this is why it works.
Quick summary:
- God made everything, and then made man and it was good.
- Man broke what God had made, God was angry but promised to give man a way to make things right.
- Man came up with a bunch of rules and a system of animal sacrifice to make things right, God was ok with this system of duct tape and paper clips but all the blood letting bothered him and people where getting the wrong idea and abusing the system.
- God spent the next few books of the bible telling people to straighten up and fly right or else, and a few more books enforcing the or else when people didn't listen.
- God tells everyone, look people your messed up, I'll send someone to make things right he'll come out of this guys family tree right here. If someone else shows up claiming to be the one and isn't from this guys family tree, you have my permission to throw very large rocks at his very large head.
- God gives it a few years then shoots on down to earth to set the system right again by setting up one last sacrifice, himself/his son/whatever.
- Enter the new testament.
The NT doesn't work without the OT. With just the NT you have a guy that showed up claimed to be god, did some stuff and was killed and may or may not have gotten back up after the dirt nap all of which only proves he could do some funky voodoo. When you add back in the OT, he did the miracles and it confirmed what God had said before, "the one is coming watch for him, he'll make things right again". Without the OT promise (to send someone to make it right), those miracles are just fancy parlor tricks that have no meaning and no tie to God.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread of debauchery and chaos!
[ QUOTE ]
...But if your conscious self continues on and you happen to meet this Ancient and eternal being, then what? I truly do not know, but better safe than sorry.
Whenever I'm typing a long post and someone walks in the office I minimize everything and bring up some code and start babbling about it until whoever is within 10 feet of me stops nodding and leaves again. Works like a charm!
[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the reason why I don't think you can use the Bible as anything other than a safety blanket - you can't just "pick and choose" which parts absolutely must be true, and which parts are a bit nasty-and-weird-so-let's-skip-over-that... it entirely defeats the object of using it as a source of truth.
Dawkins makes a very good case for this in The God Delusion, well worth a read - he explains it far better than I can here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quite right you cant just pick and choose what is true and what is not but I think God has given us brains for a reason. We can choose to utterly believe it is all literally true without questioning it(which alot of religious people do and isnt necessarily bad) or...we can use what is written and think about it deeply...use it to find meaning and truth in the world we live in and in ourselves. I believe this is a spiritual journey with God where truth is revealed to each individual, not just written simply in ink as fact. An interesting side not is that when Jesus was soon to die Pilate asked Jesus about himself:
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37
So truth is only to be found in Jesus.
By the way God delusion sounds like an interesting book but it does sound like just another excuse this has been going on forever
"20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Romans 1 20-23
Sure its not images of birds or reptiles but everyone has something that drives them, money, lust, fame and things they believe are completely truth eg evolution, science theory, technological utopia etc
sorry if any of that was confusing, its hard to keep track of what you type in this tiny polycount forum post window.
I read the article and thought it was pretty cool. I don't agree with it but it was still a fun idea for the universe. It would be a great premise for a game universe. Scientist mystics in dark towers controlling reality.
Alicia keys is hot and can sing good but for female singers I'll go with Shakira.
[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the reason why I don't think you can use the Bible as anything other than a safety blanket - you can't just "pick and choose" which parts absolutely must be true, and which parts are a bit nasty-and-weird-so-let's-skip-over-that... it entirely defeats the object of using it as a source of truth.
[/ QUOTE ]
Howso? Parts were written (transcribed, some would argue) at different times, by different people, in different places. It doesn't seem logical to shut it out of your mind as a potential source of truth just 'cause someone could have added a story two it a couple hundred years after it was made.
If we had a complete history of an ancient country, and at the end was a collection of popular children's tales, would you throw it out because it wasn't all truth? Still stuff to be learned.
I admit that, if you take the stance that the bible isn't all true, you could very well pick the wrong parts to believe in, but I guess, again, it's up to faith.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for any of you to keep an open mind about this, though. Maybe for the Christians arguing here, I guess, their faith would lead them to believe with some conviction, but why are you atheists incapable of seeing it might be true? There's no more proof against religion than there is for it.
Yeeeahhhh, SupRore, that's what I'm saying. Like I stated in my original posts, I don't have any problem with what is being discussed, I just really get rubbed the wrong way whenever someone says "scientific proof for god" - every time anyone has ever said that, it's been an outrageous claim, entirely unsubstatiated, overblown and just generally wrong. It gives a misleading impression, which is the LAST thing people need on a subject like this.
[ QUOTE ]
But God isn't determining it; the robber is. Regardless of whether or not he knows the future (a word and concept that only applies to our 3D world), the robber was the one who made the choice to do it. I don't understand how knowledge of an event causes the event to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't... but we're not talking about what causes the event to happen, we're talking about whether or not a choice even exists. If everything that is ever going to happen is already known, and that knowledge is infallible, then that means everything must be immutabley predetermined... there is no way to avoid those known events, otherwise that knowledge would be proven fallible.
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah there might be a God there might not. But in living your life like there was a God, you really have nothing to lose. If you die and your consciousness ends, well your done so what does it matter? But if your conscious self continues on and you happen to meet this Ancient and eternal being, then what? I truly do not know, but better safe than sorry.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty contemptible and insincere reason to believe, isn't it? I think God would have more compassion for an honest atheist who lived a good life than for a so-called "believer" who believed in God as a sort of insurance. I hate it when people make the "better safe than sorry" argument. You can make the same argument for not walking under ladders or avoiding black cats.
[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the reason why I don't think you can use the Bible as anything other than a safety blanket - you can't just "pick and choose" which parts absolutely must be true, and which parts are a bit nasty-and-weird-so-let's-skip-over-that... it entirely defeats the object of using it as a source of truth.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is just my very own view on the Bible and Christianity in general, but I don't see the Bible, Old or New Testament, as a source of truth at all. To me, it's more a philosophical work, a collection of books that revolve around a set of morals and ethics.
Emphasis on revolve. There's no point in arguing about the nature of God, Jesus or the Creation of man or what route Israel took through the desert. The Old Testament is (again, just opinion) purely about the commandments and the guides to living a good life. The Creation shouldn't be seen as a scientific theory that tries to explain the world. In fact, my version of the Bible has comments by a Cardinal that states it shouldn't be. Rather, it explains the very need for a set of guidelines in the first place: Man was exiled from Paradise, because it sinned by taking what it wasn't allowed to. Morale of the story: Man is not perfect. Solution: none, but here are ten simple rules to live a better life, for you and for the people around you. A Law, but with that little extra impact because it's from above and there's no use in finding loop holes. The rest of the Old Testament provides examples of what can happen when people ethics are sorely lacking. Yes, it's a threat here and a promise there, but it all revolves around following the Ten Commandments to create a liveable society. The stories around it don't matter at all; a not-perfect paintover doesn't mean that the criticism is entirely wrong
The New Testament narrows down the Ten Commandments to a single one, making the system less of a Law and more of a general idea: Love thy neighbour.
The rest only revolves around this. It doesn't matter if Jesus was a ninja cyborg lion, the message stays the same. The whole multiplying of bread and fish makes for a nice story and you could find plenty of metaphors in that. It's makes the whole thing a bit more accessible, because who would you rather believe, a guy that wanders around with a philosophy, or a guy that wanders around with a philosophy AND comes back from the dead? As long as you listen to the philosophy anyway, though, the miracles don't matter at all.
I agree that you can't simply pick parts you like and which you don't; but only applying to the core of the works. You can't leave out the commandment about not killing simply because it suits you better. You can't say 'Love thy neighbour, except when he's from Luxembourg'. What you CAN say, is that for the general philosophy to work and come across, you need to change or omit some examples and stories that worked two or three thousand years ago, but don't now.
[ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty contemptible and insincere reason to believe, isn't it? I think God would have more compassion for an honest atheist who lived a good life than for a so-called "believer" who believed in God as a sort of insurance. I hate it when people make the "better safe than sorry" argument. You can make the same argument for not walking under ladders or avoiding black cats.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. It is neither contemptible nor insincere. It is a small part of a train of thought that can lead to a better understanding of one's own spirituality.
Say what you like, but the idea of God being akin to Superstitons is flawed.
I all Im saying is, Matter is never gone it merely changes forms. You cannot truly disintegreate matter nor create it. If you can know at least that much, it can provide for the plausibilty of matter being eternal. Something that has no beginning nor end.
Now whether Consiousness is eternal in nature is the kicker. And is something for the individual to decide.
To say sombody is Contemptable or insincere because they would like to experiment upon that principle, is short sighted. For whatever reason, a personal choice to belive in a higher power is not a bad choice.
It is insincere to believe something just because it is "better safe than sorry" and "you have nothing to lose." Instead of believing something based on it's merits, evidence or plausibility, you believe it just because. That doesn't seem very sincere to me. If I told you something important, and you said that you believed me simply because it does you no harm to believe me... I wouldn't find that very flattering. In fact, it would be pretty damned patronizing.
And your argument about the conservation of matter actually seems backwards to me. If matter and energy have a beginning and an end, then that would suggest a first cause, because as you said earlier, you can't get something from nothing. But if matter and energy had a beginning (which means at one point they didn't exist), that means something had to come from nothing, so they must've been created at some point (ie by God). The "first cause" argument has it's own flaws, but I won't get into that now.
However, if matter and energy remain constant in the universe with no beginning and no end (which the laws of conservation of matter and conservation of energy would suggest), then God becomes an unnecessary part of the equation, because the Universe was not created.
has anybody ever really created anything?
Maybe God isn't a creator. He's an organizer. Matter and the universe are two different things.
Just Say'n.
Yes I agree with you it could be considered insincere, but I think when one would experiment on that Idea of God Insincereity could become sincerity. I was simply stating a simple Logic about the nature of Beliveing. Not Full Blown Faith.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe God isn't a creator. He's an organizer.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, that is a possibility... but if that's what you believe, then that would make you a deist and not a theist (there's nothing wrong with that, of course).
[ QUOTE ]
Matter and the universe are two different things.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the universe is defined as all matter and energy (and the space-time in which it is contained)... so they almost are the same thing if you include energy (which can be converted to matter, and vice versa).
That's a pretty contemptible and insincere reason to believe, isn't it? I think God would have more compassion for an honest atheist who lived a good life than for a so-called "believer" who believed in God as a sort of insurance. I hate it when people make the "better safe than sorry" argument. You can make the same argument for not walking under ladders or avoiding black cats.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your right it isnt a very good reason to believe but if a person starts out in their faith just using it as a "better safe than sorry" crutch and then eventually finds truth and freedom and real powerful faith then they have found something amazing and their faith isnt insincere or comptemptable at all. Its like they were taking small steps before learning to walk.
Also the argument that God could have more compassion on a good living athiest than an insincere believer has its problems because the athiest is an athiest. Basically what I think is that God will still love the athiest and what they have done but they have chosen not to spend time on earth with God so why would they get to go to His kingdom and spend time with him? He doesnt know them.
[ QUOTE ]
Your right it isnt a very good reason to believe but if a person starts out in their faith just using it as a "better safe than sorry" crutch and then eventually finds truth and freedom and real powerful faith then they have found something amazing and their faith isnt insincere or comptemptable at all. Its like they were taking small steps before learning to walk.
[/ QUOTE ]
My comments were only in regard to that particular reason, and not to any other reasons which it may lead to. But I'd also like to respond to your comment about "finding truth," since you brought it up. Faith and objective truth are mutually exclusive. If you know something to be true (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4), then it doesn't require faith to believe it. Faith means to accept something despite not know whether or not it is true. Faith isn't really about truth at all.
[ QUOTE ]
Also the argument that God could have more compassion on a good living athiest than an insincere believer has its problems because the athiest is an athiest.
[/ QUOTE ]
So? What difference does that make? Is god an egotist (if he does in fact exist)? Is he going to smite me for not capitalizing his name? I don't think so... and since we're arguing what is unprovable, you can believe whatever you want. I don't think it's a coincidence that you believe atheists are somehow excluded from God's favor and you happen to be a theist.
I think you should get together and make a long list with all the different versions of god and what he does in these various versions put it online and let people add their ideas to because that's the only thing you will get out of discussing an infinity as a singularity.
You could even link it with a human feeling and idea database and then let it create random concepts with feelings, like compassion, or belief and see what happens.
My comments were only in regard to that particular reason, and not to any other reasons which it may lead to. But I'd also like to respond to your comment about "finding truth," since you brought it up. Faith and objective truth are mutually exclusive. If you know something to be true (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4), then it doesn't require faith to believe it. Faith means to accept something despite not know whether or not it is true. Faith isn't really about truth at all.
So? What difference does that make? Is god an egotist (if he does in fact exist)? Is he going to smite me for not capitalizing his name? I don't think so... and since we're arguing what is unprovable, you can believe whatever you want. I don't think it's a coincidence that you believe atheists are somehow excluded from God's favor and you happen to be a theist.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well actually occording to Christian faith truth is to be found in Jesus
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
so you have to have faith and take the steps to enter into a relationship with God through Jesus his son. When you have this kind of relationship with God and find it is actually real and not just a religion(traditions, books, rules) it then becomes truth and a way of living life not a religion at all.
Per this may seem like we are trying to describe something that is infinitely more complex than we can understand but thats why the Bible is so amazing, it gives such good insight into what God is like and how we can live like God wants.
Im not trying to embue God with my own ideas Im simply stating what I believe is true for all mankind.
The bible reminds us that we can only truly comprehend God through the spirit.
"14 But people who arent spiritual[g] cant receive these truths from Gods Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they cant understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. 15 Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. 16 For,
Who can know the Lords thoughts?
Who knows enough to teach him?[h]
But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2
Which basically means that all these logical and rational and science based arguments we have are mostly meaningless because it is the spirit which can comprehend the spiritual.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if it's in the Bible then it must be true... because the Bible is true (so says the Bible).
[/ QUOTE ]
No its not just true because its in the bible, it is true because I have experienced it to be true. If you want to know if it is true for yourself then seek God and see what you find.
Knowing is merely believing with conviction, unfortunately many (most?) people don't realise this, from all areas of belief (religion and science).
I've always felt that believing in something because it can't/hasn't yet been proved false is very much the wrong way to go about it. I feel belief (in whatever) should be based on what evidence there is to support the belief, as otherwise you can come up with any old shit, define it a certain way so it's impossible to prove true or false, and then tell people to prove it's wrong when they question you.
The say I see it is religion is taught by people (heresay), and very old texts. Even if a god originally dictated the texts, they have since been through the hands of man (the scribing, translations etc.), man is fallible therefore the result is inherently open to flaw. Given this, and nothing I can perceive to be actual evidence of a god, I'm an atheist.
Science is similar, with the texts admittedly originating from humans (we're told the bible is the word of god, but again, that is hearsay, therefore not proof), and the ideas based on levels of understanding from basic foundations (1+1 = 2, can't divide by 0, mechanics etc.) to more complex levels (quantum physics, relativity etc.) which stem from the foundations, but are less understood, so more open to being flawed.
However it is constantly peer-reviewed, so when new theories are put forth to refine understanding, many people rigourously attack the theories to find holes, and the knowledge used as a basis for these "attacks" is also updated as understanding is refined. If holes are spotted, the theory is either thrown out or refined, thus trying to nail down what actually is happeneing based on observations. The result being that we end up at refined theories based on how we currently understand things, which are also open to further attacks as understanding of things improves.
Again, a problem I have with religion is that it is based on something very old and doesn't really change (belief stemming from the bible, koran etc.) means it's not changing/updating. If it does change then the texts are obviously not completely true, in which case it can't really be considered the absolute truth. If it doesn't change, then the only way it holds up is if it actually IS the truth. But there is no proof that it is truth and actually conflicts with science, which is based on solid foundations and continually seeks to improve understanding.
Of course faith doesn't require religion, however it is based on interpretation isn't it? Such as some events might happen (what could be considered miracles for example) and they can be interpreted as signs of god. Being human we are fallible, therefore our beliefs/interpretions are open to being flawed anyway. So without actual proof (or even evidence in some cases), being 100% sure of something based on something very open to interpration (or heresay) seems very wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if it's in the Bible then it must be true... because the Bible is true (so says the Bible).
[/ QUOTE ]
No its not just true because its in the bible, it is true because I have experienced it to be true. If you want to know if it is true for yourself then seek God and see what you find.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe I've sought Vishnu or Allah or Buddha, and I've found that it is actually untrue. Not really, but I can't find one hypothetical deity to be anymore truthful or valid than any other hypothetical deity. No particular religious mythos lends itself to be more or less believable than any other... except maybe Scientology .
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts
[ QUOTE ]
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really consider myself an atheist, but this is a good quote.
[ QUOTE ]
^
The above manner of reply is the thing I can't deal with in these kinds of threads. Why can't you disagree without the mocking antagonism?
[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't intended to be antagonistic, I was using Socratic irony.
Hey man, you ever think that, ya know, the universe exists because you think it exists? And what if you stopped thinking? Where did it go? It's like God, man. Everyone thinks he exists, and then BAM, he's like, there man. Just there. Think about it. It's fucking science, man!
Hey man, you ever think that, ya know, the universe exists because you think it exists? And what if you stopped thinking? Where did it go? It's like God, man. Everyone thinks he exists, and then BAM, he's like, there man. Just there. Think about it. It's fucking science, man!
[/ QUOTE ]
And the only reason we die, is because we accept it as an inevitability! (to quote Stewie Griffin)
I read that article by Chris Bateman. I think it is excellent, though I think it ignores the implications on society that freedom of metaphysical belief allows. I really wish I had already read Dawkin's book so I could say more about this, though from what I can tell, he (Dawkins) is arguing for the reduction of problems caused by such deep beliefs that have a profound impact on people's behaviour. Behaviour which is sometimes extremely negative. Seemingly though in an unethical manner.
That is a good article, and some of the responses are interesting too. Even as a Christian I have come across other Christians who seem to have lost their perspective on compassion and care for the world in the present. I think this is because these people are too focused on the religious(traditions, rules, prophecies) and not focused on what those teachings actually mean, the same as the pharisees who ordered Jesus' death, they thought they were doing what their religion required. I believe there is a big difference between actually following Jesus' teachings and just being a part of the religion.
Jesus' message is called "the good news" for a reason, people are supposed to be joyful that they have found a way to connect with God and have forgiveness of their sins ...they arent supposed to be fearful of going to hell. It really is all about love and compassion both in the physical and spiritual.
The things I have said in this thread I have constantly noted as being my own beliefs. Alot of people dont do this, not only the religious, even scientific theorys or athiestic opinions sometimes get stated as fact, and that is obviously not tactful or caring.
This has actually been quite a good discussion so far Ive not seeen this kind of issue tackled on a forum before, and with such discipline. Thanks polycounters
Replies
Amit Goswami
Before you read any further, stop and close your eyes for a moment. Now consider the following question: for the moment your eyes were closed, did the world still exist even though you weren't conscious of it? How do you know?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooo... the universe would cease to exist if everyone was rendered blind? It's like they are tackling the question "if a tree falls in the woods..." and instead of putting cameras in the woods & doing weekly surveys to document which trees are up and which are down. They take the approach, I'm not there so the forest doesn't exist? I can understand if they wanted to say the "discussion" is pointless since no one is there to gather evidence.
[ QUOTE ]
Goswami has done his math
[/ QUOTE ]Well, ok then. That does it I'm convinced. The article reads more like a justification for faith than scientific proof. If you have to justify your faith is it really faith or is it fear of being wrong? But maybe I'm wrong, maybe scientific fact is just all conjecture without research. I love how we can just click our heals close our eyes and wish something into concrete proof.
Does this guy even read his Christian manual? Faith, not scientific proof is the key. If you have faith you don't need scientific proof. If you have scientific proof you don't need faith. He brings the wrong message if he really is trying to do what a Christian should do.
Ok back to reading the thread, I'm sure you guys have some funny shit to say. Where's Per's post? This thread has been up for a while I'm sure it has descended into chaos by now.
the following might be an interesting read for some of you, especially if u have an interest in world religions [and the only surviving polytheistic religion in the world
Now, as i explain my point of view on this topic, keep in mind that i am indeed a non-believer, yet i tend to show a great interest in learning about all religions. I've read parts of the bible, some of the qu'ran and some of the Vedas and Gita. Upon asking a few questions, i've come to think that hinduism bases itself mostly on science:
1) we believe in what is called agnijanm and agnianth which translate into "birth by fire" and "death by fire." If u were hopped up on sugar and wanted to go crazy, you could explain that 'birth by fire' refers to the big bang, and _not_ god just saying 'boo-yaa! and then there was peoples!!'. As for "death by fire" that could easily refer to long term effects of global warming, or any other such events. [forest fires raging across the world causing a collapse of the food chain, or the good-old meteor theory re-enacted].
2) Gods were, to the hindu, just like us: people living on earth.and as such, they too had wars, babies, and sins among other things. They existed on this earth during one of the 7 [i think its 7] yugs [eras]. The yug in which they existed is called "satyug" [era of good things] and the era we are in now is called "kalyug," which means "an era in which bad things happen" ie. we're supposed to destroy the world with our sinning.
3) hindu gods were also the first to experiment with 'test-tube' babies, in the story of Ramayan [Ram is a test tube baby in a different sense].
4) Hindu gods ascended to their place in heavan due to the concept of nirvana. [i think at least?]
5) god's don't excercise much power anymore. Only do their duties. Brahma created, Vishnu guards, Shiva will destroy. The other gods like Ganga noursish us etc. etc. NOTE: shiva the destroyer is not a bad god. he is not neglected, and rather, is worshipped by Saivites in his two forms, Rudra and... something else. [yes Rudra like in Devil May Cry]. We have no concept of a 'bad god'. Ravan himself wasn't a bad god, just an evil ruler of the Lankans. He's just given 10 heads to signify that he had the intelligence of 10 men.
6) god's come to earth in various avatars [this word is actually from sanskrit "avataara" meaning "image of god on earth"] and only try to fix various errors of mankind.
hope u enjoyed learning a bit more about hinduism!
peace!
Also, I think it is hard to validate how scientific a religion is by its text because most of them were written so long ago they hardly can relate to today's science.
he has a team of ninja cyborg lions who stealthily alter our world to his bidding.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the sort of god I can get behind!
Vig, hah, awesome post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
I don't stand in line with this man, but he has an entertaining way of explaining
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113
[ QUOTE ]
he has a team of ninja cyborg lions who stealthily alter our world to his bidding.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the sort of god I can get behind!
[/ QUOTE ]
"And on the 8th day, God said, Let there be robotic ninja lions, and it was good."
They left that part out
Dawkins makes a very good case for this in The God Delusion, well worth a read - he explains it far better than I can here.
A lot of people (including myself) think that the old testament is somewhat useless. When I went to Mexico about a month ago, the hotel's bibles were the new testament only. Also, when I went shopping at the Malecon in PV, they were only selling copies of the new testament.
[/ QUOTE ]I'm not preaching or trying to woo anyone to "see the light". I can't even say I believe it myself but I can explain why the old testament is needed for Christianity to work, because it was explained to me. Of course I'm sure there are conflicting points of view and religions but for the majority of "Christians" this is why it works.
Quick summary:
- God made everything, and then made man and it was good.
- Man broke what God had made, God was angry but promised to give man a way to make things right.
- Man came up with a bunch of rules and a system of animal sacrifice to make things right, God was ok with this system of duct tape and paper clips but all the blood letting bothered him and people where getting the wrong idea and abusing the system.
- God spent the next few books of the bible telling people to straighten up and fly right or else, and a few more books enforcing the or else when people didn't listen.
- God tells everyone, look people your messed up, I'll send someone to make things right he'll come out of this guys family tree right here. If someone else shows up claiming to be the one and isn't from this guys family tree, you have my permission to throw very large rocks at his very large head.
- God gives it a few years then shoots on down to earth to set the system right again by setting up one last sacrifice, himself/his son/whatever.
- Enter the new testament.
The NT doesn't work without the OT. With just the NT you have a guy that showed up claimed to be god, did some stuff and was killed and may or may not have gotten back up after the dirt nap all of which only proves he could do some funky voodoo. When you add back in the OT, he did the miracles and it confirmed what God had said before, "the one is coming watch for him, he'll make things right again". Without the OT promise (to send someone to make it right), those miracles are just fancy parlor tricks that have no meaning and no tie to God.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread of debauchery and chaos!
What of these 2 areas discussed here do you think creates more need for ones own responsibility towards ... 'everything'
[ QUOTE ]
...But if your conscious self continues on and you happen to meet this Ancient and eternal being, then what? I truly do not know, but better safe than sorry.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like Pascal's Wager.
That article actually includes several logical rebuttals that might be worth a quick read.
Get back to work you fucking hobos.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whenever I'm typing a long post and someone walks in the office I minimize everything and bring up some code and start babbling about it until whoever is within 10 feet of me stops nodding and leaves again. Works like a charm!
This is exactly the reason why I don't think you can use the Bible as anything other than a safety blanket - you can't just "pick and choose" which parts absolutely must be true, and which parts are a bit nasty-and-weird-so-let's-skip-over-that... it entirely defeats the object of using it as a source of truth.
Dawkins makes a very good case for this in The God Delusion, well worth a read - he explains it far better than I can here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quite right you cant just pick and choose what is true and what is not but I think God has given us brains for a reason. We can choose to utterly believe it is all literally true without questioning it(which alot of religious people do and isnt necessarily bad) or...we can use what is written and think about it deeply...use it to find meaning and truth in the world we live in and in ourselves. I believe this is a spiritual journey with God where truth is revealed to each individual, not just written simply in ink as fact. An interesting side not is that when Jesus was soon to die Pilate asked Jesus about himself:
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37
So truth is only to be found in Jesus.
By the way God delusion sounds like an interesting book but it does sound like just another excuse this has been going on forever
"20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Romans 1 20-23
Sure its not images of birds or reptiles but everyone has something that drives them, money, lust, fame and things they believe are completely truth eg evolution, science theory, technological utopia etc
sorry if any of that was confusing, its hard to keep track of what you type in this tiny polycount forum post window.
http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2007/06/ethics-of-metap.html
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting read, Gauss, thanks.
John Doe 15:37 "Dude I'm deadeth"
Ipfreely 2:3 "Mine urineth gushesth forth"
I'm an Aestheticist myself =p
I read the article and thought it was pretty cool. I don't agree with it but it was still a fun idea for the universe. It would be a great premise for a game universe. Scientist mystics in dark towers controlling reality.
Alicia keys is hot and can sing good but for female singers I'll go with Shakira.
This is exactly the reason why I don't think you can use the Bible as anything other than a safety blanket - you can't just "pick and choose" which parts absolutely must be true, and which parts are a bit nasty-and-weird-so-let's-skip-over-that... it entirely defeats the object of using it as a source of truth.
[/ QUOTE ]
Howso? Parts were written (transcribed, some would argue) at different times, by different people, in different places. It doesn't seem logical to shut it out of your mind as a potential source of truth just 'cause someone could have added a story two it a couple hundred years after it was made.
If we had a complete history of an ancient country, and at the end was a collection of popular children's tales, would you throw it out because it wasn't all truth? Still stuff to be learned.
I admit that, if you take the stance that the bible isn't all true, you could very well pick the wrong parts to believe in, but I guess, again, it's up to faith.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for any of you to keep an open mind about this, though. Maybe for the Christians arguing here, I guess, their faith would lead them to believe with some conviction, but why are you atheists incapable of seeing it might be true? There's no more proof against religion than there is for it.
But God isn't determining it; the robber is. Regardless of whether or not he knows the future (a word and concept that only applies to our 3D world), the robber was the one who made the choice to do it. I don't understand how knowledge of an event causes the event to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't... but we're not talking about what causes the event to happen, we're talking about whether or not a choice even exists. If everything that is ever going to happen is already known, and that knowledge is infallible, then that means everything must be immutabley predetermined... there is no way to avoid those known events, otherwise that knowledge would be proven fallible.
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah there might be a God there might not. But in living your life like there was a God, you really have nothing to lose. If you die and your consciousness ends, well your done so what does it matter? But if your conscious self continues on and you happen to meet this Ancient and eternal being, then what? I truly do not know, but better safe than sorry.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty contemptible and insincere reason to believe, isn't it? I think God would have more compassion for an honest atheist who lived a good life than for a so-called "believer" who believed in God as a sort of insurance. I hate it when people make the "better safe than sorry" argument. You can make the same argument for not walking under ladders or avoiding black cats.
This is exactly the reason why I don't think you can use the Bible as anything other than a safety blanket - you can't just "pick and choose" which parts absolutely must be true, and which parts are a bit nasty-and-weird-so-let's-skip-over-that... it entirely defeats the object of using it as a source of truth.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is just my very own view on the Bible and Christianity in general, but I don't see the Bible, Old or New Testament, as a source of truth at all. To me, it's more a philosophical work, a collection of books that revolve around a set of morals and ethics.
Emphasis on revolve. There's no point in arguing about the nature of God, Jesus or the Creation of man or what route Israel took through the desert. The Old Testament is (again, just opinion) purely about the commandments and the guides to living a good life. The Creation shouldn't be seen as a scientific theory that tries to explain the world. In fact, my version of the Bible has comments by a Cardinal that states it shouldn't be. Rather, it explains the very need for a set of guidelines in the first place: Man was exiled from Paradise, because it sinned by taking what it wasn't allowed to. Morale of the story: Man is not perfect. Solution: none, but here are ten simple rules to live a better life, for you and for the people around you. A Law, but with that little extra impact because it's from above and there's no use in finding loop holes. The rest of the Old Testament provides examples of what can happen when people ethics are sorely lacking. Yes, it's a threat here and a promise there, but it all revolves around following the Ten Commandments to create a liveable society. The stories around it don't matter at all; a not-perfect paintover doesn't mean that the criticism is entirely wrong
The New Testament narrows down the Ten Commandments to a single one, making the system less of a Law and more of a general idea: Love thy neighbour.
The rest only revolves around this. It doesn't matter if Jesus was a ninja cyborg lion, the message stays the same. The whole multiplying of bread and fish makes for a nice story and you could find plenty of metaphors in that. It's makes the whole thing a bit more accessible, because who would you rather believe, a guy that wanders around with a philosophy, or a guy that wanders around with a philosophy AND comes back from the dead? As long as you listen to the philosophy anyway, though, the miracles don't matter at all.
I agree that you can't simply pick parts you like and which you don't; but only applying to the core of the works. You can't leave out the commandment about not killing simply because it suits you better. You can't say 'Love thy neighbour, except when he's from Luxembourg'. What you CAN say, is that for the general philosophy to work and come across, you need to change or omit some examples and stories that worked two or three thousand years ago, but don't now.
That's a pretty contemptible and insincere reason to believe, isn't it? I think God would have more compassion for an honest atheist who lived a good life than for a so-called "believer" who believed in God as a sort of insurance. I hate it when people make the "better safe than sorry" argument. You can make the same argument for not walking under ladders or avoiding black cats.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. It is neither contemptible nor insincere. It is a small part of a train of thought that can lead to a better understanding of one's own spirituality.
Say what you like, but the idea of God being akin to Superstitons is flawed.
I all Im saying is, Matter is never gone it merely changes forms. You cannot truly disintegreate matter nor create it. If you can know at least that much, it can provide for the plausibilty of matter being eternal. Something that has no beginning nor end.
Now whether Consiousness is eternal in nature is the kicker. And is something for the individual to decide.
To say sombody is Contemptable or insincere because they would like to experiment upon that principle, is short sighted. For whatever reason, a personal choice to belive in a higher power is not a bad choice.
And your argument about the conservation of matter actually seems backwards to me. If matter and energy have a beginning and an end, then that would suggest a first cause, because as you said earlier, you can't get something from nothing. But if matter and energy had a beginning (which means at one point they didn't exist), that means something had to come from nothing, so they must've been created at some point (ie by God). The "first cause" argument has it's own flaws, but I won't get into that now.
However, if matter and energy remain constant in the universe with no beginning and no end (which the laws of conservation of matter and conservation of energy would suggest), then God becomes an unnecessary part of the equation, because the Universe was not created.
Maybe God isn't a creator. He's an organizer. Matter and the universe are two different things.
Just Say'n.
Yes I agree with you it could be considered insincere, but I think when one would experiment on that Idea of God Insincereity could become sincerity. I was simply stating a simple Logic about the nature of Beliveing. Not Full Blown Faith.
Maybe God isn't a creator. He's an organizer.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, that is a possibility... but if that's what you believe, then that would make you a deist and not a theist (there's nothing wrong with that, of course).
[ QUOTE ]
Matter and the universe are two different things.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the universe is defined as all matter and energy (and the space-time in which it is contained)... so they almost are the same thing if you include energy (which can be converted to matter, and vice versa).
I don't mind and it does n't matter:)
That's a pretty contemptible and insincere reason to believe, isn't it? I think God would have more compassion for an honest atheist who lived a good life than for a so-called "believer" who believed in God as a sort of insurance. I hate it when people make the "better safe than sorry" argument. You can make the same argument for not walking under ladders or avoiding black cats.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your right it isnt a very good reason to believe but if a person starts out in their faith just using it as a "better safe than sorry" crutch and then eventually finds truth and freedom and real powerful faith then they have found something amazing and their faith isnt insincere or comptemptable at all. Its like they were taking small steps before learning to walk.
Also the argument that God could have more compassion on a good living athiest than an insincere believer has its problems because the athiest is an athiest. Basically what I think is that God will still love the athiest and what they have done but they have chosen not to spend time on earth with God so why would they get to go to His kingdom and spend time with him? He doesnt know them.
Yeeeahhhh, SupRore, that's what I'm saying.
[/ QUOTE ]
well, ok.
Your right it isnt a very good reason to believe but if a person starts out in their faith just using it as a "better safe than sorry" crutch and then eventually finds truth and freedom and real powerful faith then they have found something amazing and their faith isnt insincere or comptemptable at all. Its like they were taking small steps before learning to walk.
[/ QUOTE ]
My comments were only in regard to that particular reason, and not to any other reasons which it may lead to. But I'd also like to respond to your comment about "finding truth," since you brought it up. Faith and objective truth are mutually exclusive. If you know something to be true (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4), then it doesn't require faith to believe it. Faith means to accept something despite not know whether or not it is true. Faith isn't really about truth at all.
[ QUOTE ]
Also the argument that God could have more compassion on a good living athiest than an insincere believer has its problems because the athiest is an athiest.
[/ QUOTE ]
So? What difference does that make? Is god an egotist (if he does in fact exist)? Is he going to smite me for not capitalizing his name? I don't think so... and since we're arguing what is unprovable, you can believe whatever you want. I don't think it's a coincidence that you believe atheists are somehow excluded from God's favor and you happen to be a theist.
You could even link it with a human feeling and idea database and then let it create random concepts with feelings, like compassion, or belief and see what happens.
Stuff to discuss for eons
My comments were only in regard to that particular reason, and not to any other reasons which it may lead to. But I'd also like to respond to your comment about "finding truth," since you brought it up. Faith and objective truth are mutually exclusive. If you know something to be true (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4), then it doesn't require faith to believe it. Faith means to accept something despite not know whether or not it is true. Faith isn't really about truth at all.
So? What difference does that make? Is god an egotist (if he does in fact exist)? Is he going to smite me for not capitalizing his name? I don't think so... and since we're arguing what is unprovable, you can believe whatever you want. I don't think it's a coincidence that you believe atheists are somehow excluded from God's favor and you happen to be a theist.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well actually occording to Christian faith truth is to be found in Jesus
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
so you have to have faith and take the steps to enter into a relationship with God through Jesus his son. When you have this kind of relationship with God and find it is actually real and not just a religion(traditions, books, rules) it then becomes truth and a way of living life not a religion at all.
Per this may seem like we are trying to describe something that is infinitely more complex than we can understand but thats why the Bible is so amazing, it gives such good insight into what God is like and how we can live like God wants.
Im not trying to embue God with my own ideas Im simply stating what I believe is true for all mankind.
The bible reminds us that we can only truly comprehend God through the spirit.
"14 But people who arent spiritual[g] cant receive these truths from Gods Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they cant understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. 15 Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. 16 For,
Who can know the Lords thoughts?
Who knows enough to teach him?[h]
But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2
Which basically means that all these logical and rational and science based arguments we have are mostly meaningless because it is the spirit which can comprehend the spiritual.
Well actually occording to Christian faith truth is to be found in Jesus
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if it's in the Bible then it must be true... because the Bible is true (so says the Bible).
The above manner of reply is the thing I can't deal with in these kinds of threads. Why can't you disagree without the mocking antagonism?
Well, if it's in the Bible then it must be true... because the Bible is true (so says the Bible).
[/ QUOTE ]
No its not just true because its in the bible, it is true because I have experienced it to be true. If you want to know if it is true for yourself then seek God and see what you find.
I've always felt that believing in something because it can't/hasn't yet been proved false is very much the wrong way to go about it. I feel belief (in whatever) should be based on what evidence there is to support the belief, as otherwise you can come up with any old shit, define it a certain way so it's impossible to prove true or false, and then tell people to prove it's wrong when they question you.
The say I see it is religion is taught by people (heresay), and very old texts. Even if a god originally dictated the texts, they have since been through the hands of man (the scribing, translations etc.), man is fallible therefore the result is inherently open to flaw. Given this, and nothing I can perceive to be actual evidence of a god, I'm an atheist.
Science is similar, with the texts admittedly originating from humans (we're told the bible is the word of god, but again, that is hearsay, therefore not proof), and the ideas based on levels of understanding from basic foundations (1+1 = 2, can't divide by 0, mechanics etc.) to more complex levels (quantum physics, relativity etc.) which stem from the foundations, but are less understood, so more open to being flawed.
However it is constantly peer-reviewed, so when new theories are put forth to refine understanding, many people rigourously attack the theories to find holes, and the knowledge used as a basis for these "attacks" is also updated as understanding is refined. If holes are spotted, the theory is either thrown out or refined, thus trying to nail down what actually is happeneing based on observations. The result being that we end up at refined theories based on how we currently understand things, which are also open to further attacks as understanding of things improves.
Again, a problem I have with religion is that it is based on something very old and doesn't really change (belief stemming from the bible, koran etc.) means it's not changing/updating. If it does change then the texts are obviously not completely true, in which case it can't really be considered the absolute truth. If it doesn't change, then the only way it holds up is if it actually IS the truth. But there is no proof that it is truth and actually conflicts with science, which is based on solid foundations and continually seeks to improve understanding.
Of course faith doesn't require religion, however it is based on interpretation isn't it? Such as some events might happen (what could be considered miracles for example) and they can be interpreted as signs of god. Being human we are fallible, therefore our beliefs/interpretions are open to being flawed anyway. So without actual proof (or even evidence in some cases), being 100% sure of something based on something very open to interpration (or heresay) seems very wrong.
Such as this guy's theory.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if it's in the Bible then it must be true... because the Bible is true (so says the Bible).
[/ QUOTE ]
No its not just true because its in the bible, it is true because I have experienced it to be true. If you want to know if it is true for yourself then seek God and see what you find.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe I've sought Vishnu or Allah or Buddha, and I've found that it is actually untrue. Not really, but I can't find one hypothetical deity to be anymore truthful or valid than any other hypothetical deity. No particular religious mythos lends itself to be more or less believable than any other... except maybe Scientology
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really consider myself an atheist, but this is a good quote.
[ QUOTE ]
^
The above manner of reply is the thing I can't deal with in these kinds of threads. Why can't you disagree without the mocking antagonism?
[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't intended to be antagonistic, I was using Socratic irony.
Hey man, you ever think that, ya know, the universe exists because you think it exists? And what if you stopped thinking? Where did it go? It's like God, man. Everyone thinks he exists, and then BAM, he's like, there man. Just there. Think about it. It's fucking science, man!
*smokes some wacky weed*
Hey man, you ever think that, ya know, the universe exists because you think it exists? And what if you stopped thinking? Where did it go? It's like God, man. Everyone thinks he exists, and then BAM, he's like, there man. Just there. Think about it. It's fucking science, man!
[/ QUOTE ]
And the only reason we die, is because we accept it as an inevitability! (to quote Stewie Griffin)
That is a good article, and some of the responses are interesting too. Even as a Christian I have come across other Christians who seem to have lost their perspective on compassion and care for the world in the present. I think this is because these people are too focused on the religious(traditions, rules, prophecies) and not focused on what those teachings actually mean, the same as the pharisees who ordered Jesus' death, they thought they were doing what their religion required. I believe there is a big difference between actually following Jesus' teachings and just being a part of the religion.
Jesus' message is called "the good news" for a reason, people are supposed to be joyful that they have found a way to connect with God and have forgiveness of their sins ...they arent supposed to be fearful of going to hell. It really is all about love and compassion both in the physical and spiritual.
The things I have said in this thread I have constantly noted as being my own beliefs. Alot of people dont do this, not only the religious, even scientific theorys or athiestic opinions sometimes get stated as fact, and that is obviously not tactful or caring.
This has actually been quite a good discussion so far