ALL religions make me want to throw up...

[Metal Vendetta]

Genocide thing? I don't believe that. Perhaps you are deriving this from the present day Bible, which I believe is full of inaccuracies and alterations. I do believe He spoke to Moses.

King James Bible old enough for ya?

NUMBERS 31 1-6
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.

4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

If theres any bits you don't understand, I'm available for Bible studies any time, Yaya.

[Bouncelot]

There is no Muslim country in the world that lives according to Koran and Islamic law. Not a single one.

The same can easily be said of Christianity. Is there any true Christian state?

Which raises the question of whether a Christian State is a valid concept. One of the many differences between Christianity and Islam is that Islam was created in the context of a state religion. Once Mohammed had fled to Medina, he became the local ruler and by the time he conquered Mecca, Islam was inseperable from the state. Christianity, on the other hand, began in a small backwater of a great empire, and Christians were persecuted by the authorities for most of the first three centuries of Christianity. As a result, the idea of a "Christian state" came rather late in the day.

That's why its important to take into consideration the times we live in. Islam is a religion that is out there, in its original form. The Koran still exists in its original form since the time it was revealed. Yet how many are there who live by it, who without scholarly knowledge of it, bend it like the Bible to suit their own personal agendas?[/quote[

Um, actually, we can't be sure that the Koran does exist in its original form. The version available today dates back to the time of Caliph Uthman, who realised that there were several different versions and destroyed all those differing from his own. We have no way of knowing whether Uthman's version was the original or whether it differs. Though I agree about people twisting both books to suit.

Um. I'm not Christian, nor do I follow a book that has been altered time and time again.

Care to offer some evidence of this claim about the Bible?

[Metal Vendetta]

I'm stating is what I believe, not what I necessarily do. I don't necessarily practice what I preach

Which is precisely why what you believe is trivial. If you dont actually live by it in the real world then it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

[Bouncelot]

Thought I'd have a go at your list as well.

What does your God do all day?

Well, He doesn't exactly exist within the bounds of time, but He does make sure that each day actually happens.

Where does he live?

The nearest He has to a home is heaven, a spiritual (i.e. not physical) place where He is more present than other places.

Where did he come from?

Infinite beings don't have to have a beginning or origin.

Since people seem to be fond of calling it a "he," does he have a penis? Is it a huge penis? What does he do with said penis?

God is a person, so using "it" is totally wrong. It's traditional to use "he" rather than "she", and like Yaya I prefer to use the capitalised "He" to distinguish God from humans both as a mark of respect and as probably the best compromise available in English between impersonal pronouns and gendered pronouns.

Where does the Holy Spirit come into this?

The Holy Spirit is God, but is also distinct from God. Look up the doctrine of the Trinity sometime if you want it more formally.

What are the function of angels?

Well the Bible shows them doing two things. Firstly worshipping God and secondly acting as occasional messengers from God.

If God's all powerful, why does he need helpers?

He doesn't need them, but that doesn't mean that He can't decide to work through helpers if He wants to.

For that matter, if God's all powerful, why did it take him seven days to create the world?

It didn't. It only took six. The Bible uses the six days of creation, one day of rest as a reason for the sabbath - ensuring that humans take a day of rest within the week, so that's probably the reason for it.

Since humans are different from angels in that they hae free will, does that mean that Lucifer wasn't free to do what he did and was, in a very real sense, set up by God?

What makes you think that angels don't have free will to some degree?

What does God look like?

The only time He ever had a physical body, He looked like a Jewish man called Yeshua.

Jesus died for our sins, or so I'm told. How does a guy dying on a cross after being brutally tortured save us from Hell?

Jesus took the things that we deserve when we get to Hell so that we wouldn't have to. The punishment we deserve was deflected onto Him.

Didn't God create this hell in the first place?

Yes, kind of. Hell is a place where the defining feature is separation from God.

If God's all powerful, why did he need a mortal being to save us from the hell that he created?

Firstly, Jesus was God. Secondly, dying was part of the punishment Jesus had to take as part of it.

If God is all powerful, why can he not speak to humans directly?

He can and does. But only when He wants to.

Why does he need the angel Metatron?

Who?

If God prizes free will above all, why is it that when humans excercised it in ways that displeased him, he killed all but one family in a flood?

That assumes that God does prize free will above all.

God created Adam and Eve (leaving out the Lilith thing); they had two sons, one of whom killed the other. Where did future generations of people come from?

That's not what the Bible says. The Bible says that Adam and Eve had lots of sons and daughters, three of whom are named.

The reason given in the bible for having different languages is the tower of babel displeased God so he made it impossible for people to speak to one another. The Tower of Babel was built to reach the heavens. We know, for a fact, that the tallest building conceived by forward thinking architects utilizing advanced polymers and aerodynamic materials will not reach to "heaven." What did God have to fear?

Ever hear of a metaphor? The tower is generally thought (by those who take the passage literally) to have been a temple-ziggurat rather than a skyscraper.

If God created all people, did he not, in fact, create both the sets of "Adam and Eve" as well as "Adam and Steve?"

Not necessarily. Homosexuality could plausibly be a later corruption of the original design for humans rather than part of it.

[Yaya]

Genocide thing? I don't believe that. Perhaps you are deriving this from the present day Bible, which I believe is full of inaccuracies and alterations. I do believe He spoke to Moses.

King James Bible old enough for ya?

No, actually. I believe the Bible was altered not too far after the time of Jesus Christ and that no original version exists to day. Even taking just the translation upon translation into account, much of the meaning can change. There's not even a "J" sound in Aramaic, so Jesus was not his given name.

Care to offer some evidence of this claim about the Bible?

You mean aside from the translations down the ages and aside from the very changes going on before our very eyes?

But this aside, I simply don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, nor that by his death our actions have been forgiven. I believe Jesus to be a Prophet amongst the thousands of prophets like Moses, Noah, Muhammand (PBUH), etc.

The Bible was revealed in the time of the Romans, who were very apt to give their gods sons, fathers, daughters, etc. The idea of one God did not appeal to them. And giving that they were the ruling powre, it is possible that Jesus was "made" the son of God by those like Paul to make Christianity more appealing to those of the Roman empire. Remember, the Bible was not written in the time of Jesus, but rather over a hundred years thereafter.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

When reading religious scriptures, even those I don't believe to be truth, I don't want to make the mistake of taking things out of context. But it sounds to me here that the Bible is condoning the killing of boys in this circumstance. I think this is a question more appropriately directed to those who are more familiar with the Bible. Maybe Bouncelot can interject here. Also, in times of war, killing of the enemy and strategic war strategy is permitted, provided rules of battle be followed, like no killing of children, women, the unarmed, the elderly, no cutting of trees , no killing of cattle or animals, etc. Even in war, there is proper behavior as deemed by God. I do not believe the killing of young boys to fall in this category. [/quote]

[Yaya]

I'm stating is what I believe, not what I necessarily do. I don't necessarily practice what I preach

Which is precisely why what you believe is trivial. If you dont actually live by it in the real world then it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

No, it doesn't make it trivial, it makes me human.

We all make mistakes, all the time. Its that I recognize those mistakes and try to correct them that is important, not that I commit them.

There is no saint on this planet earth and I am certainly far from one. But its my effort and repentence that counts.

Who among the world doesn't sin? It's impossible to not sin. It's impossible to do everything right all the time. I believe God created us, and I believe he knows us better than anyone. He knows mankind cannot do all that is asked of him, but that's not the important thing. The important thing is what Muslims call Jihad, which means "to struggle" (and is often mistakenly taken to mean death in battle, which is only one form of Jihad) to do the right thing.

[Shanti418]

So you still haven't exactly put forth where your specific views are coming from. You either have a source for God's wisdom, or you talk to God.

[Yaya]

So you still haven't exactly put forth where your specific views are coming from. You either have a source for God's wisdom, or you talk to God.

No, I certainly don't talk to God, unless you mean praying to Him. Yes, of course, I do have a source and am not just talking out of my ass.

Originally from a family of Catholics, I converted to Islam years ago after reading the Koran.

What appealed to me was 1) the belief in God as One and unlike anything in creation, and 2) the Koran as a book that has not changed to the letter and exist in its original form today, 3) the biography of Muhammad (PBUH) as written by Islamic scholars and not Western authors. 4) the idea that I don't need any intercessor, like a priest, to pray to God or have a relationship with God.

With that backgroud, I studied Islam for years and found many things in it just clicked in me and converted. I'm not a scholar of it by any means, but seek to learn more of it with time.

[Best First]

God is a person

er, how so?

there's loads of whacky stuff flying around this topic now but this one in particular caught my eye.

Surely a source of infinite justice, wisdom, etc would be beyond the notion of a personality? Persoanlities are an animalistic trait, they are our foibles, quirks and interests our manner, our emotional triggers, if god has a personality then its not a reliable source of anything as that personality would colour all that it does.

We seem to be back to this childish (which i mean in a more philisophical sense) notion that humanity is somehow more connected to a creator than anything else, because what happens to us is important to us, and so any creator must in some way be like us and care about us, but any infinite being has no reason to see us as being any more intersteing or significant than a rock or a star or a worm.

[Professor Smooth]

I honestly believe that this thread is making progress!

[Metal Vendetta]

I'm stating is what I believe, not what I necessarily do. I don't necessarily practice what I preach

Which is precisely why what you believe is trivial. If you dont actually live by it in the real world then it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

No, it doesn't make it trivial, it makes me human.

We all make mistakes, all the time. Its that I recognize those mistakes and try to correct them that is important, not that I commit them.

There is no saint on this planet earth and I am certainly far from one. But its my effort and repentence that counts.

No it isn't, it's what you actually DO that counts. Everything else just takes place inside your own head, and doesn't matter at all, except to you. You might kill a man and think "That was wrong, God didn't want me to do that, I've strayed from the path" etc. but in real terms, the man is still dead and you still killed him. Whether you believe in God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is totally irrelevant.

Incidentally, any word back on Moses yet? Do you think God told him to slaughter an entire race of people?

[Kaylee]

I'm curious as to why beliefs like this are held by individuals. As far as I can tell from reading this topic there is no rational explanation or proof for the beliefs, there is no single definitive set of rules for the belief and there isn't even a discernable set of deliverables for subscribing to the belief. It all essentially amounts to "I like it/it makes me feel good". Exactly why that branch of belief, that deity and why religion at all remains to be seen. In short it makes the actual religion itself seem rather redundant, much the same as the question I asked of Smooth when he announced his conversion to Satanism: "what's the point?" I never really did get any sort of answer.

Most people are perfectly capable of doing all the positive things involved in a religion without actually subscribing to the religion.

I'd like to know (although I appreciate I'm changing the direction of the discussion) why people subscribe to these ideas. I'm intrigued by the idea of things 'clicking'; does that mean that what you've read chimes with your preconceived notions of how the world should be? Or that it reaffirms your ideals for human behaviour? The togetherness of the religion? Or the psychological comfort of being able to dump huge questions about human existence on the back of "God said so/We can't understand his plans etc."?

Why exactly do you subscribe to these ideas and notions- what do you get out of them, what aspects of your mindset do they satisfy?

I'm genuinely intrigued, so I don't mean to sound too clinical or that I'm being mean though I appreciate I probably come across that way.

[Yaya]

No it isn't, it's what you actually DO that counts. Everything else just takes place inside your own head, and doesn't matter at all, except to you

This is what I was talking about when I was referring to two different mindsets. To an atheist, prayer, worship, repentence, etc, are matters of the mind and nothing more. They are figments made up to deal with inner turmoil, guilt, and to provide hope. To the believer in God, they are everything, the very purpose of existence.

But in reference to your statement of what we actually do that counts, I agree that the practical side of things can't be ignored. For example, if I kill you, my prayers and repetence don't bring you back. Justice is of utmost importance no matter what happens, to which I defer to what I believe God has Defined as justice. And in the matter of murder, it is that your family should have the right to kill me. That is justice, a very practical justice that has little to do with spirituality. This is one of the the problems (along with the other one Best First mentioned in a post above about mankind wanting to bring God down to their level) that I have with the idea in Christianity that Jesus died for my shortcomings. Is that justice? I believe God to be just above all else.

Incidentally, any word back on Moses yet? Do you think God told him to slaughter an entire race of people?

I responded to that above. I don't have knowledge personally of the dialogue between Moses and God. I know that Moses was a prophet, one of the few who actually spoke to the Creator, but aside from that God instructed him with guidance on right and wrong, I don't know.

One glaring difference between the Koran and the Bible is that in the Koran, prophets were holy men chosen as messengers because of their upright character. They did not commit incest and the such as mentioned in the Bible, so there are major discrepancies between Prophethood in Christianity and prophethood in Islam. [/quote]

[Yaya]

I'm curious as to why beliefs like this are held by individuals.
Why exactly do you subscribe to these ideas and notions- what do you get out of them, what aspects of your mindset do they satisfy?

Religion should not be a quest to "feel good". Getting drunk, having sex, reading TF comic, etc, all do those things. I could easily adopt the ideas of the worlds greatest philosophers to the same end, yet we label it philosophy and not religion.

I approach life with the question "Upon reflection, based on what I have experienced in life, what I know and have seen, what is the truth of existence?"

There are things in my own religion that I find, because of my own weakness, difficult for me to do. Yet, I don't find myself asking "Why am I doing something that I don't like doing?" or "Why don't I do something I like to do but shouldn't"? Instead, I find myself saying "I don't like doing this, but I know God wants me to, so I'll do my best". And even when I can't do it, I know that because I sincerely tried, that God is forgiving. He created me weak, and so I will be weak.

[Yaya]

Um, actually, we can't be sure that the Koran does exist in its original form. The version available today dates back to the time of Caliph Uthman, who realised that there were several different versions and destroyed all those differing from his own. We have no way of knowing whether Uthman's version was the original or whether it differs.

Caliph Othman was a companion who lived during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Othman simply brought it together in one text instead of several.

So the Koran today is the same Koran that existed during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). To the dot.

[Kaylee]

Why do you think God wants you to do these things? What element of you is it that says these things are right for you to aspire to, what makes you want to 'better' yourself towards these ends doing things you may not like or which are difficult to accomplish?

[Yaya]

Why do you think God wants you to do these things? What element of you is it that says these things are right for you to aspire to, what makes you want to 'better' yourself towards these ends doing things you may not like or which are difficult to accomplish?

There are levels of faith.

Some obey God out of fear of Him. Others out of love for Him. And some out of both.

What makes me want to do these things is because I reflect that He gave me life, I reflect on all that He created, and I reflect on my own and everyone elses finite existence. Then, for these reasons, I find myself automatically inclined to say to myself "God is worthy of all the praise" .

[Kaylee]

There are levels of faith.

Some obey God out of fear of Him. Others out of love for Him. And some out of both.

What makes me want to do these things is because I reflect that He gave me life, I reflect on all that He created, and I reflect on my own and everyone elses finite existence. Then, for these reasons, I find myself automatically inclined to say to myself "God is worthy of all the praise" .

But there is no proof that God did any of these things, so it comes down to a matter of faith. I appreciate and understand that you believe these things and that is what gives them their strength in your mind; what I'm curious about fundamentally is why you believe them?

You must yourself reflect that some of your answers are intentionally empty - "We cannot understand God's reasoning" is a total cop-out of an answer. I don't feel bad about saying that because I'm reasonably certain that as an intelligent individual you are already aware of that. You are forced to default to it because you are aware there are holes in your belief but your belief is strong enough to carry on despite these holes and their obvious (dubious) filling.

I'm greatly interested as to where this strong faith comes from, what it is founded upon. Hence my interest being piqued when you mentioned that your faith 'clicked' with Islam. What is it about Islam that made so much sense to you? Basically I'm asking what is it within you that felt so right when aligned with this particular religion? Given that the main three are (broadly speaking) very similar and that the same leaps of faith necessary to overcome the missing pieces in Islam can be made for just about any religion if you believe it enough. Hence, why the strong belief here?

What is it in you that wants Islam/Judeo-Christian religion to be correct? You must wish it to be so else you would not believe in it.

[Metal Vendetta]

But in reference to your statement of what we actually do that counts, I agree that the practical side of things can't be ignored. For example, if I kill you, my prayers and repetence don't bring you back. Justice is of utmost importance no matter what happens, to which I defer to what I believe God has Defined as justice. And in the matter of murder, it is that your family should have the right to kill me. That is justice, a very practical justice that has little to do with spirituality.

You mean an eye for an eye? Hardly an attractive system, it leaves the whole world blind, or so I hear. Also it's incredibly close to vengeance again. Religion is a bloodthirsty business though.

Incidentally, any word back on Moses yet? Do you think God told him to slaughter an entire race of people?

I responded to that above. I don't have knowledge personally of the dialogue between Moses and God. I know that Moses was a prophet, one of the few who actually spoke to the Creator, but aside from that God instructed him with guidance on right and wrong, I don't know.

[/quote]
Apologies, I was in the process of editing that thread after I saw your reply up there ^^

According to the Old Testament, God told Moses to wipe out the Midianites because they worshipped a different god and their women had been sleeping with Israelite men. So Moses ordered his men to commit murder and rape on a massive scale and stole all their cows and sheep. God definitely gave him some great guidance vis a vis right and wrong there.

One glaring difference between the Koran and the Bible is that in the Koran, prophets were holy men chosen as messengers because of their upright character. They did not commit incest and the such as mentioned in the Bible, so there are major discrepancies between Prophethood in Christianity and prophethood in Islam.

Or the Koran, written a few thousand years later, just left out the bad stuff?

Even in war, there is proper behavior as deemed by God.

I looked this up on Wikipedia, and it directed me towards Surah 47 verse 4.

1. Those who reject Allah and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah,- their deeds will Allah bring to naught.

2. But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the Revelation sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.

3. This because those who reject Allah follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the Truth from their Lord: thus does Allah set forth for men their lessons by similitudes.

4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind (the captives) firmly: thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

The bits in bold italic are the sort of thing I have a problem with. You know, exactly the kind of verse that might incite people to, well, smite at the necks of Unbelievers? Take their families hostage? Lovely.

Also I like the way that you dismiss the Bible because it was revealed in Roman times (despite Numbers being in the Old Testament which was written long before that) but don't apply that criteria to a book written by a man who couldn't write and which was memorised and copied down by large numbers of people and then edited to produce a definitive version in 7th Century Arabia. Like the New Testament might contain a sop to Roman beliefs, how can the Koran not be influenced by the ideals and needs of 7th Century Arabs?

And while we're on the rules of war, how come none of this was revealed to Moses? Why did God wait until Arabia in the 7th Century to reveal this stuff, surely it might have been of some use back in Israel?

[Professor Smooth]

It all essentially amounts to "I like it/it makes me feel good". Exactly why that branch of belief, that deity and why religion at all remains to be seen. In short it makes the actual religion itself seem rather redundant, much the same as the question I asked of Smooth when he announced his conversion to Satanism: "what's the point?" I never really did get any sort of answer.

I like it. I makes me feel good. There are others like me who I can talk to about my beliefs. I don't, for a moment, think that my beliefs would work for everybody. Satanism doesn't tell me how to lead my life. It doesn't tell me what to do, who to avoid, or that I'm better than anybody else. I do not feel that Satanism is the most legitimate "religion" and that anybody who feels otherwise simply doesn't get it.

Other aspects of Satansim that interest me are many. Thanks to the relative new-ness of it, there have not been multiple revisions made to The Satanic Bible by sucessors to its original author. The Church of Satan, though eligible for the tax-exempt status granted to religious organizations, does not partake in it. They do not need to be told they're legitimate by any government. The Satanic Bible is available in one format and one format only. $7.99 Mass market paperback. You don't get to be a "better" Satanist by spending more money on your copy of the text.

I don't think that everyone else needs to or can be saved. There is no mission to convert the non-believers. There is just a couple of suggestions, take them or leave them, that can, perhaps, be applied to situations in daily life.

Satanism suggests that following current scientific and technological trends makes more sense than adhering to outdated thoughts simply because it's what's been done before. Tradition's important, but not when it stands in the way of progress.

At the end of the day, the Satanic Bible is less like a bible and more like a camping manual. There are things in there that may be of use to some campers, but it's not the only way.

[Kaylee]

It all essentially amounts to "I like it/it makes me feel good". Exactly why that branch of belief, that deity and why religion at all remains to be seen. In short it makes the actual religion itself seem rather redundant, much the same as the question I asked of Smooth when he announced his conversion to Satanism: "what's the point?" I never really did get any sort of answer.

I like it. I makes me feel good. There are others like me who I can talk to about my beliefs. I don't, for a moment, think that my beliefs would work for everybody. Satanism doesn't tell me how to lead my life. It doesn't tell me what to do, who to avoid, or that I'm better than anybody else. I do not feel that Satanism is the most legitimate "religion" and that anybody who feels otherwise simply doesn't get it.

Other aspects of Satansim that interest me are many. Thanks to the relative new-ness of it, there have not been multiple revisions made to The Satanic Bible by sucessors to its original author. The Church of Satan, though eligible for the tax-exempt status granted to religious organizations, does not partake in it. They do not need to be told they're legitimate by any government. The Satanic Bible is available in one format and one format only. $7.99 Mass market paperback. You don't get to be a "better" Satanist by spending more money on your copy of the text.

I don't think that everyone else needs to or can be saved. There is no mission to convert the non-believers. There is just a couple of suggestions, take them or leave them, that can, perhaps, be applied to situations in daily life.

Satanism suggests that following current scientific and technological trends makes more sense than adhering to outdated thoughts simply because it's what's been done before. Tradition's important, but not when it stands in the way of progress.

At the end of the day, the Satanic Bible is less like a bible and more like a camping manual. There are things in there that may be of use to some campers, but it's not the only way.

Your religion sounds more like a hobby than anything else. It sounds like you don't 'believe' in it to any great degree as you'll happily admit that there are times when a person would do well to ignore it. In fact you sound happy to admit it's all completely made up and, in the final analysis, of no importance. I suppose therein lies my answer to why you 'believe' in it, you seem to basically don't

You like it and are happy to go along with it sometimes and to associate yourself with it, as you see no reason not to do so, but you don't seem to have the level of conviction and belief in it as a 'truth' as some other individuals here do in their religious persuasions. Would that seem a fair summary? i.e. for yourself saying "I am a Satanist" is more akin to somebody saying that subscribe to Freudian Theory rather than a more conventional religious subscriber expanding their adherence to their particular sect. A reasonable metaphor?

I'd imagine that means I need therefore to reclarify my question to include the word 'faith', which I think we can agree is a word missing from your adherence to Satanism. Rightly or wrongly, you have no other-worldly faith in it (I don't mean that in the judgemental sense, I've no interest in such issues- I'm fascinated however by the motives behind these convictions or in this case the lack thereof).

So what reasons do other individuals here perhaps have for putting such levels of faith into something? Basically I'm trying to break the chicken-and-egg line of reasoning which runs:

1. I believe in God
2. I believe in God because of the beauty/wonder of the world (or similar)
3. I know this was created by God because of 1.

A believer must have a reason intrinsic to themself (something not exterior to themselves) for subscribing to point 1. I'm on a mission to perhaps expand my understanding of the motivations for such a conviction Yeah, I'm bored. And nosey. Sue me.

[Bouncelot]

So much to respond to. I'll have to break it up into a couple of posts.

God is a person

er, how so?

there's loads of whacky stuff flying around this topic now but this one in particular caught my eye.

Surely a source of infinite justice, wisdom, etc would be beyond the notion of a personality? Persoanlities are an animalistic trait, they are our foibles, quirks and interests our manner, our emotional triggers, if god has a personality then its not a reliable source of anything as that personality would colour all that it does.

And infinite love, joy, wrath, and lots of other things that we associate with personality. Perhaps if I'd said "sentient being" instead that might be a more palatable way of putting it. The point is that God isn't some impersonal force, he's someone we can relate to. Yes, He's above our concept of personality, but personalities are, to a certain extent, something by which we mirror God.

I'm curious as to why beliefs like this are held by individuals. As far as I can tell from reading this topic there is no rational explanation or proof for the beliefs, there is no single definitive set of rules for the belief and there isn't even a discernable set of deliverables for subscribing to the belief. It all essentially amounts to "I like it/it makes me feel good". Exactly why that branch of belief, that deity and why religion at all remains to be seen. In short it makes the actual religion itself seem rather redundant, much the same as the question I asked of Smooth when he announced his conversion to Satanism: "what's the point?" I never really did get any sort of answer.

Most people are perfectly capable of doing all the positive things involved in a religion without actually subscribing to the religion.

I'd like to know (although I appreciate I'm changing the direction of the discussion) why people subscribe to these ideas. I'm intrigued by the idea of things 'clicking'; does that mean that what you've read chimes with your preconceived notions of how the world should be? Or that it reaffirms your ideals for human behaviour? The togetherness of the religion? Or the psychological comfort of being able to dump huge questions about human existence on the back of "God said so/We can't understand his plans etc."?

Why exactly do you subscribe to these ideas and notions- what do you get out of them, what aspects of your mindset do they satisfy?

I'm genuinely intrigued, so I don't mean to sound too clinical or that I'm being mean though I appreciate I probably come across that way.

There are a whole host of reasons why I believe what I do. I believe Christianity to be true based on my personal study of it and my experience of it, and the effect I see it having on people I know. I can think of lots of people I know who have been utterly tranformed by Christianity, I've seen and experienced things that make most sense to me as God acting, there are times when God has spoken to me.

[Kaylee]

There are a whole host of reasons why I believe what I do. I believe Christianity to be true based on my personal study of it and my experience of it, and the effect I see it having on people I know. I can think of lots of people I know who have been utterly tranformed by Christianity, I've seen and experienced things that make most sense to me as God acting, there are times when God has spoken to me.

Hm highly intriguing. What makes you believe that there is more to these sights and sounds than normality can explain? Furthermore, I assume at one point you were non-religious (that is, not aligned to any particular religion) and came to believe through your experiences of life that there must be something more? What made you believe this 'more' was Christianity, as oppose to say the beliefs of your Islamic cousins? I appreciate ideas and philosophies can be very profound on people's psyches, how do you make the link between this and believing in something which, if it weren't so steeped in institution and collective consciousness, would be generally considered rather far-fetched?

Finally, how do you differentiate God's voice from the many conflicting threads of your own mind? How can you be sure it was Him and not just your own mind. Unless you physically heard him, naturally, but I'm assuming this was an internal experience. If so, on what basis do you believe this internal experience to have any external causality?

Interestingly enough, on a more unrelated note, I did a psychometric test today and the job which I was second most suited to was a counsellor/psychologist! Strange how things work out!

[Metal Vendetta]

I can think of lots of people I know who have been utterly tranformed by Christianity, I've seen and experienced things that make most sense to me as God acting, there are times when God has spoken to me.

What did he say?

What's his voice like? Is it like Brian Blessed?

[edit]

Interestingly enough, on a more unrelated note, I did a psychometric test today and the job which I was second most suited to was a counsellor/psychologist! Strange how things work out!

Oddly enough, I did one of those in the street the other day. The nice lady said I should be a Scientist. At least I think that's what she said, it was noisy on Kentish Town High Street. They have big meetings on Wednesday nights and apparently I've got to read a book about Dieting first.

[Kaylee]

What's his voice like? Is it like Brian Blessed?

You should be able to tell quite quickly if it were Brian Blessed: the first words He'd say to you would be something like "I'm BRIAN BLESSED!!"

[Bouncelot]

Caliph Othman was a companion who lived during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Othman simply brought it together in one text instead of several.

So the Koran today is the same Koran that existed during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). To the dot.

Hm, contrast that with

Uthman is perhaps best known for forming and heading the committe which established the basic text of the Qur'an as it exists today. Various Muslim centers, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur'an. Uthman feared that the nascent Islamic empire would fall apart in religious controversy if it did not have a sacred text recognized by everyone. Sometime during the end of his reign, the committee produced a text. Uthman had it copied and sent copies to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, commanding that variant versions of the Qur'an be destroyed, and only his version used. Many devout believers believed that his actions were high-handed and accused Uthman of tampering with the sacred book.

Looks to me like Uthman destroyed variant readings of the Qur'an after Mohammed had died. What guaruntee have we got that Uthman preserved the correct version? How do we know that the objectors weren't right about Uthman? His version may have been the best preserved version, but there's no way to be certain given that the variants no longer exist to compare.

Genocide thing? I don't believe that. Perhaps you are deriving this from the present day Bible, which I believe is full of inaccuracies and alterations. I do believe He spoke to Moses.

King James Bible old enough for ya?

No, actually. I believe the Bible was altered not too far after the time of Jesus Christ and that no original version exists to day. Even taking just the translation upon translation into account, much of the meaning can change. There's not even a "J" sound in Aramaic, so Jesus was not his given name.

There's not even a "J" letter in the Aramaic alphabet either. Though if you look at various languages, the letter "j" represents a wide variety of sounds. The reason that the Hebrew name Yeshua is translated "Jesus" in English translations is because the English anglicised Jesus/Yeshua's name and it would cause too much confusion to use the original in an English translation. Using a more familiar rendering of a name is hardly evidence that anything has been changed.

Care to offer some evidence of this claim about the Bible?

You mean aside from the translations down the ages and aside from the very changes going on before our very eyes?

What changes? If you mean the process of translation, translating something into another language doesn't change the original text you're translating from, it merely makes the content available to a wider audience. Incidentally, we have better manuscripts available now than they did when they did the King James version - so modern translations do have differences from that one. But even there, the changes are very minor and don't affect even one passage that is considered important in Christian doctrine.

But this aside, I simply don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, nor that by his death our actions have been forgiven. I believe Jesus to be a Prophet amongst the thousands of prophets like Moses, Noah, Muhammand (PBUH), etc.

Well, obviously, as you're a Muslim. That doesn't affect the fact that Jesus' first followers believed all those things that you don't.

The Bible was revealed in the time of the Romans, who were very apt to give their gods sons, fathers, daughters, etc. The idea of one God did not appeal to them. And giving that they were the ruling powre, it is possible that Jesus was "made" the son of God by those like Paul to make Christianity more appealing to those of the Roman empire. Remember, the Bible was not written in the time of Jesus, but rather over a hundred years thereafter.

Wrong. The New Testament was all written within the first century - within living memory of Jesus - by His followers and you won't find a reputable scholar who disagrees with that dating, though there are quibbles over who wrote some bits. And the idea of Jesus being the "Son of God" appears in the portions of the New Testament which are clearly aimed primarily at a Jewish audience as well as the portions aimed at a more Gentile/Greek audience. Plus, of course, the Biblical phrase "Son of God" refers to a very different concept to the Greco-Roman sons of gods. Its meaning is possibly best summed up by the start of John's Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

"Son of God" means actually being God, albeit come to Earth in the form of a human.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

When reading religious scriptures, even those I don't believe to be truth, I don't want to make the mistake of taking things out of context. But it sounds to me here that the Bible is condoning the killing of boys in this circumstance. I think this is a question more appropriately directed to those who are more familiar with the Bible. Maybe Bouncelot can interject here. Also, in times of war, killing of the enemy and strategic war strategy is permitted, provided rules of battle be followed, like no killing of children, women, the unarmed, the elderly, no cutting of trees , no killing of cattle or animals, etc. Even in war, there is proper behavior as deemed by God. I do not believe the killing of young boys to fall in this category.

In context, this is portrayed as divine judgement on the Midianites for trying to seduce Israel into sexual immorality and idol worship as well as for committing those sins themselves. Yes, passages like this offend our 21st Century Western Worldview, and I sometimes get confused about how they fit in, though I tend to think that it's to do with God's Holiness and Justice - aspects of God that almost run directly counter to the way the culture around me thinks. Also, I would be surprised if there were very many in the group ordered to be killed who hadn't been willingly involved in those particular sins.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Why belive in god?

I mean, apart from jesus talking about god the rest is made up by humans, so why belive what jesus had to say?

Hes the only guy thats supposedly ever spoken with him, so why belive him? isnt he just a quack?

and since we wrote about him hundreds of years later isnt that aload of quack aswell?

Christanity is based on what humans think some bloke hundreds of years before said about some guy called god - I find that tough to belive in because its got about as much weight to it as me claimming to be the son of god.

[Kaylee]

Interestingly enough, on a more unrelated note, I did a psychometric test today and the job which I was second most suited to was a counsellor/psychologist! Strange how things work out!

Oddly enough, I did one of those in the street the other day. The nice lady said I should be a Scientist. At least I think that's what she said, it was noisy on Kentish Town High Street. They have big meetings on Wednesday nights and apparently I've got to read a book about Dieting first.

Sweetish! Although it sounds rather like she was making a subtle attempt to criticise your weight [/sorry, off topic. I be good]

[Best First]

Looks to me like Uthman destroyed variant readings of the Qur'an after Mohammed had died. What guaruntee have we got that Uthman preserved the correct version? How do we know that the objectors weren't right about Uthman? His version may have been the best preserved version, but there's no way to be certain given that the variants no longer exist to compare.

There's not even a "J" letter in the Aramaic alphabet either. Though if you look at various languages, the letter "j" represents a wide variety of sounds. The reason that the Hebrew name Yeshua is translated "Jesus" in English translations is because the English anglicised Jesus/Yeshua's name and it would cause too much confusion to use the original in an English translation. Using a more familiar rendering of a name is hardly evidence that anything has been changed.

i love the above two quotes together, from the same person, in the same post.

"Dude, i think it looks highly likley that your holy blah de blah has been fiddled with"

"Dude i find it highly unlikley that my holy boop de boop has been fiddled with"

[Bouncelot]

There are a whole host of reasons why I believe what I do. I believe Christianity to be true based on my personal study of it and my experience of it, and the effect I see it having on people I know. I can think of lots of people I know who have been utterly tranformed by Christianity, I've seen and experienced things that make most sense to me as God acting, there are times when God has spoken to me.

Hm highly intriguing. What makes you believe that there is more to these sights and sounds than normality can explain?

Well, things like healings, people speaking in lanuguages they've never learnt (and I can point to cases where speaking in tongues was an actual language that somebody in the room understood), and some examples of absolutely accurate prophecy stand out as examples of things I can't explain easily by naturalistic means.

[quote[Furthermore, I assume at one point you were non-religious (that is, not aligned to any particular religion) and came to believe through your experiences of life that there must be something more?[/quote]

I first became a Christian as a child, I saw my parents' Christianity and decided - unprompted by anything or anyone - that I wanted the relationship they had with God. My subsequent experience and study has completely backed up that decision. Most of my Christian friends became Christians much later in life and could probably answer that in a lot more detail.

What made you believe this 'more' was Christianity, as oppose to say the beliefs of your Islamic cousins? I appreciate ideas and philosophies can be very profound on people's psyches, how do you make the link between this and believing in something which, if it weren't so steeped in institution and collective consciousness, would be generally considered rather far-fetched?

As I said before, looking at the evidence for the central doctrines of Christianity leads me to believe that it is true. When I've looked into Islam, it's seems so much more human in its doctrines and beliefs. When I've looked into Judaism, I find their interpretation of the Hebrew Bible so much less convincing than a Christian one. Though, admittedly, I've not looked too much into other faiths than those.

Finally, how do you differentiate God's voice from the many conflicting threads of your own mind? How can you be sure it was Him and not just your own mind. Unless you physically heard him, naturally, but I'm assuming this was an internal experience. If so, on what basis do you believe this internal experience to have any external causality?

I've not physically heard God, though I've known people who have. My experience is that there are a range of ways of hearing God. There have been two or three times when God's voice has been utterly unmistakeable - it's the mental equivalent of someone shouting in your ear, and there's no way it could possibly be your own thoughts. Other times, I've been reading the Bible and verses have directly leapt out at me, and there are other times where I've had a definite "impression" of something God wants to say, it doesn't resemble any of my own thoughts, and isn't exactly words. It's the sort of thing that's difficult to describe to anyone who hasn't experienced it.

Interestingly enough, on a more unrelated note, I did a psychometric test today and the job which I was second most suited to was a counsellor/psychologist! Strange how things work out!

Hm, your posts in this thread dovetail with that quite nicely.