ALL religions make me want to throw up...

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:39 am

Best First wrote:
saysadie wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Im pretty sure they could twist the rules to turn it against sucide bombers etc?
Only if they wanted to die...
such earthly fears kind of suggest a lack of faith and conviction though, don't they?

Probably.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:37 am

I guess what im saying is that these Muslims who feel the need to blow themselves up with the idea that they go to heaven and get 40 wives etc... they interpreted thier 'book' in a way that makes it ok to do this.

Now, wheres the other side of this coin claimming this is utter rubbish and if you do so you will go to hell (or someplace else bad) - im pretty sure the scriptures could be interpreted 'another' way, no?

dont fight religon with guns, faith will always prevail, fight it with religon, and let faith do the job for you - if we had this anti-terror stuff being spouted out all day long on radio, on TV in leaflets, newspapers etc... im talking mass total propoganda here, then we might be able to save the world.

It annoys me that all thats ever seen is the evil side, Al Jazzera TV spouts its hate messages, but not the good messages.

Seriously, this is a 'war' over propganda, and untill someone explains to these ppl using the same method the middle east is ******.
the west is good at advertising, use it.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:42 pm

I also get irked by the "they're not 'real' Christians" argument. If someone was doing a bunch of bad **** in my god's name, I'd be horrified that my religion was being used to support a platform of hate, or homophobia, or sexism or whatever. But it seems that these 'fake' Christians outnumber the 'real' Christians, so the 'real' Christians can't do anything about it.

Actually, if the 'fake' Christians are more numerous, more vocal, and in charge, doesn't that make them the 'real' Christians?

In fact, has anyone ever met a 'real' Christian?

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:34 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:I also get irked by the "they're not 'real' Christians" argument. If someone was doing a bunch of bad **** in my god's name, I'd be horrified that my religion was being used to support a platform of hate, or homophobia, or sexism or whatever. But it seems that these 'fake' Christians outnumber the 'real' Christians, so the 'real' Christians can't do anything about it.

Or simply that the media prefers to report the 'fake' Christians or whatever - people being nice to others or issuing statements condemning extremists doesn't make a good headline. Extremist nutters flying a plane or two into the World Trade Centre apparently in the name of a religion does.

Also, in the US, the Religious Right have political power giving them a voice far in excess of their numbers and importance. And that unfairly colours Western perspectives of what Christians stand for. Even in the US, the Religious Right are a minority amongst practicing Christians. However, they shout louder, and make a deliberate effort to get their voice heard and their beliefs made policy.

Actually, if the 'fake' Christians are more numerous, more vocal, and in charge, doesn't that make them the 'real' Christians?

In a word, no. The word Christian is derived from the word Christ. Anyone who doesn't at least try to follow Christ has, in my opinion, no right to call themselves a Christian. If fake fur was more common, more noticable, and more popular than fake fur, would that make fake fur more real than real fur?

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:39 pm

He lives in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and his name is Elmo.

No, seriously, having been involved with religious people for so long, I haven't met a whole lot who use their belief to justify what is basically inhumane behavior. Those who said bad things about homosexuality usually didn't know any homosexuals. Those who were thoughtless, cruel and unthinking to other people were either anamolous personalities, or tired, sick or depressed-- and were using their religion as an impetus for change. For individuals, faith is much more than simply a crutch, a comfort-- it's a way of life that promises that you will be a better person the next day or year. Sometimes one may fall into unhealthy cycles because of that faith, and one would need to reconstruct one's worldview and perhaps one's faith, but I've rarely seen a faith that creates that mentality.

Saladin is venerated by the Muslim community for his adherence to the laws of jihad. When one looks at the Crusades, it is very clear that the Muslims were a thousand times more humane than the Christians ever were because they had a code of laws on how to use violence. That code was initially provided by Muhammed, and built upon by other faithful Muslims.

My problem is with organizations. People, like Saladin, can choose to use their religion as a tool in the service of their own humanity and kindness. (Not saying Saladin is a great role model otherwise, but Shanti did bring up the Crusades) Religion provides a foundation with which to do that. This is what people mean when they talk about "real" Christians-- people who take the words of Christ as primary, and organizational bull**** as periphery.

But within a highly organized religion, there is always a "party line" that certain people will stick to as they rise within the ranks. And an organized religion, when quoting the "party line," will always claim that this is a revelation of the will of God. It is their great ace in the hole. It becomes clear from history that the more institutionalized anything becomes, the more evil it perpetuates in service of its own desires. There is a reason why Martin Luther King was an autonomous preacher in a faith with little central organization. It gave him a great amount of freedom on how he could actually interpret what he believed. This is also why Jesus was a faith healer walking around the wilderness, subverting and criticizing the prevalining institutions.

At some point, somebody is going to disagree with the party line, and have to go with what they feel is right. Now, trust me when I say this is neither easy or calming, and very few people really understand. This is because, within the context of something that does a lot of good for people, they are being pressured to fit the party line. Nobody stands up to the party line, which is why so many people hate organized religion, yet can love those within the religion.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:07 am

Best First wrote:I’m just ignoring Yaya from now on, anyone who is happy dividing the world into two halves and stating what both aspire too on their behalf. has got arrogance issues that i just can’t compete with.

There is a fundamental difference in the thought process of those who believe in the Supernatural and those who do not. If that's arrogance to say that, I'm fine with that. It's what I believe. I merely wish to point out why it is so difficult, or impossible really, for a believer in God to see things the way an atheist does, and vice versa.

although God doesn't need our worship, He does deserve it.

I believe this. For example, there are those who buy Michael Jordans shoes, his clothes, cover their walls with his posters, etc. because they think of that he represents something great. Ask them why they dig him so much, and they will out of wild admiration say he's the greatest.

But Michael Jordan, as great a basketball player as he is, is a man. Imperfect and flawed in many ways, like every other person.

What I'm saying is that if something is worthy of my attention, my praise, and my worship, it is He that created me. And created Michael Jordan. One hundred, two hundred years from now, all of us on this board will be eaten by worms and bugs. So will Michael Jordan.

Some believe being eaten by worms and bugs is our ultimate destination, the end of our existence. But for myself, I believe otherwise.

Yaya? Is the personal worship what really counts? Is it as valid without the institution? Am I right to drop the institution when it doesn't help my personal worship? It feels like a normal, natural, choice, but it's been the most painful experience of my life thus far.

I believe this. That God created me. That God is everywhere and knows everything. He knows my heart and thoughts. He knows my intentions. Therefore, if I worship him, He will hear me. I don't need any intercessors, priests, rabbis, etc. to worship Him on my behalf. As I mentioned earlier, worship is often taken to mean getting on ones knees or bowing. This is only one form of worship called prayer. I believe worship can take many forms. For example, I believe God has ordered me to be good to orphans, neighbors, the needy. If I help them with this intention: "God has instructed me in this, and therefore I will do as He commands", then it is 100% worship. Making others around more comfortable because God likes this is worship.
It all comes down to intention, really.

Not to say that mosques or churches don't serve a purpose. They are houses of prayer, for sure, but they are not the only conduits between my heart and mind, and my Creator.

Where are all the 'real Christians' taking on the American right or the 'real Muslims' actively preaching against jihad and all that jizz?

Im surprised Muslim clerics dont come forth and say anyone killing themselves in the name of Jihad will not be going to see Allah.

Im pretty sure they could twist the rules to turn it against sucide bombers etc?

Where are the real Christians and real Muslims? Damn good question. They are a dying breed, for sure.

That is the state of the world today, a reflection not of any particular religion, but more on the state of the world as a whole.

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?

Hell, it is rare to find even a single individual that practices true Islam. What we have now are people who pick and choose what they want, when they want to further their own selfish tendencies. We have imams in mosques speaking to masses of people without real knowledge, without evidence, that yes, the Koran or the teaching of Muhammad (PBUH) actually back them up. If I want to know about Islam, I want to know about Islam. Not what some unscholarly schmuk thinks about Islam.

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?

I guess what im saying is that these Muslims who feel the need to blow themselves up with the idea that they go to heaven and get 40 wives etc... they interpreted thier 'book' in a way that makes it ok to do this.

Now, wheres the other side of this coin claimming this is utter rubbish and if you do so you will go to hell (or someplace else bad) - im pretty sure the scriptures could be interpreted 'another' way, no?

Islam teaches suicide make one hellbound.

But where are those voices? They are hushed up, imprisoned, or worse by those who stand to gain from this. Islam, when practiced as has been intended, does not allow the unjust who stand to thrive from their selfish tendencies to exist. Just look at the Saudi Princes. Some of the most corrupt people in the entire world, who bend the teachings of Islam by forcing scholars to give fatwas the way they want. If Islam was enforced, their asses would end up behind bars.

Not sure how they sleep at night, but they do. Very comfortably, I might add.

Post by **Best First** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Yaya wrote:
Best First wrote:I’m just ignoring Yaya from now on, anyone who is happy dividing the world into two halves and stating what both aspire too on their behalf. has got arrogance issues that i just can’t compete with.
There is a fundamental difference in the thought process of those who believe in the Supernatural and those who do not. If that's arrogance to say that, I'm fine with that. It's what I believe. I merely wish to point out why it is so difficult, or impossible really, for a believer in God to see things the way an atheist does, and vice versa.

i'd find that a more credible response if you didn't insist on telling people how and why they think on every topic from comics upwards.

not to mention that your polarised analysis is too simpistic to be of any use.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:52 pm

Best First wrote: i'd find that a more credible response if you didn't insist on telling people how and why they think on every topic from comics upwards.

Who doesn't around here? On any message board, for that matter?

If my opinion raises your blood pressure, take a chill pill. Read a comic. Make love to your wife. Pick flowers on a sunny afternoon.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:38 pm

Yaya wrote:
Best First wrote:I’m just ignoring Yaya from now on, anyone who is happy dividing the world into two halves and stating what both aspire too on their behalf. has got arrogance issues that i just can’t compete with.
There is a fundamental difference in the thought process of those who believe in the Supernatural and those who do not. If that's arrogance to say that, I'm fine with that. It's what I believe. I merely wish to point out why it is so difficult, or impossible really, for a believer in God to see things the way an atheist does, and vice versa.

Now that makes no sense to me. If you can't understand the way an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, sees the world, then what is the point of having a meaningful dialogue? If you can't see their viewpoints as valid as your own, whether you are atheist or Christian, why bother trying to live with them?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:48 am

sprunkner wrote: Now that makes no sense to me. If you can't understand the way an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, sees the world, then what is the point of having a meaningful dialogue? If you can't see their viewpoints as valid as your own, whether you are atheist or Christian, why bother trying to live with them?

Living with someone peacefully and with tolerance is not what I'm addressing here. Certainly, people from all walks of life should make their best effort to live with one another, and to tolerate differences provided no harm is being done on an individual or social level.

I'm speaking specifically about convincing someone whether God does or does not exist. An atheist would find it difficult to understand and relate to the actions and thought processes of one who believes in a God, and vice versa. The question "Do you believe in God or not?" is nothing trivial in the least. In fact, I would say that it is the most substantial question and determinant of how a person will live their life and see the world.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:08 am

Yaya wrote:The question "Do you believe in God or not?" is nothing trivial in the least. In fact, I would say that it is the most substantial question and determinant of how a person will live their life and see the world.

That is among the stupidest things I have read.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:13 am

As opposed to your thought-out, considerate and well-spoken reply?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:08 pm

sprunkner wrote:As opposed to your thought-out, considerate and well-spoken reply?

It gets the point across, does it not?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:52 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Yaya wrote:The question "Do you believe in God or not?" is nothing trivial in the least. In fact, I would say that it is the most substantial question and determinant of how a person will live their life and see the world.
That is among the stupidest things I have read.

How so? I mean, it's an almost common sensical statement.

Actions of an atheist and a believer in God can be the same, but the intentions are vastly different. Please explain, what is stupid in saying that?

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:01 pm

Yaya wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:
Yaya wrote:The question "Do you believe in God or not?" is nothing trivial in the least. In fact, I would say that it is the most substantial question and determinant of how a person will live their life and see the world.
That is among the stupidest things I have read.

How so? I mean, it's an almost common sensical statement.

Actions of an atheist and a believer in God can be the same, but the intentions are vastly different. Please explain, what is stupid in saying that?

Atheist gives a poor man food because the man is hungry and it's the right thing to do
God believer gives a poor man food because God said to.
Either way, man gets food. Either way, good intentions were at the haart of the action.
For a LOT of people, not just atheists and not just lazy Christians, what they think of God or how they view God or even if they think God exists is not at the center of their universe or being. Saying "Your answer to if you believe in God or not is the most substantial question and determinant of how a person will live their life," makes as muich sense as if you said the question was "Do you believe in ghosts?" or "Do you like Radiohead?" It's a question, yes, but at most, the ansewr is just a facet of their personality AND their morality.

When you say that the answer to that question decides how people will act and live their life and view the world, it subtly suggests that someone who doesn't believe in God is somewhow deficient or faces an uphill battle in forming their own morality. And that's what Smooth takes offense too, I believe.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:34 pm

Shanti418 wrote: When you say that the answer to that question decides how people will act and live their life and view the world, it subtly suggests that someone who doesn't believe in God is somewhow deficient or faces an uphill battle in forming their own morality. And that's what Smooth takes offense too, I believe.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Post by **Best First** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:44 pm

Yaya wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:
Yaya wrote:The question "Do you believe in God or not?" is nothing trivial in the least. In fact, I would say that it is the most substantial question and determinant of how a person will live their life and see the world.
That is among the stupidest things I have read.

How so? I mean, it's an almost common sensical statement.

Actions of an atheist and a believer in God can be the same, but the intentions are vastly different. Please explain, what is stupid in saying that?

your overly simplistic evaluation and application of your own values and mindset (as usual) to other people to the end of reaching a conclusion that can be applied to everyone when in fact you have not even remotely put in sufficient endevour to try and understand (or have done so with no visible evidence and no success) other people and instead just make assumptions that suit your world view.

Firstly you assume that because the question matters to you that everyone else must give it equal weight - when in fcat it seem likley that some people are entirely apathetic to such a question, some people live polytheistic societies and such a questions isn't applicable and some people do not really think much about this sort of thing because it never realy occurs to them, to name just a few shades of grey. The fact you say it is 'not trivial' betrays quite evidently how you are attempting to apply what matters to you to all and sundry.

Secondly you create a false schism between nonbelievers and believers, not only does this ignore the above facet of the import people apply to such a question but it dismisses the notion of agnosticism which clearly exists and, by suggesting the mindsets are mutually exclsuive, fails to account for those who either move from a postitiomn of faith to non belief or vice versa.

Thirdly you assume that just because you cannot comprehend someone elses mindset that this must be true of all others, however you miss the concept of empathy that is essential to any discussion of different points of view or understanding the actions of others.

Never equate not agreeing for not understanding. Unless you can't think of a beter response of course. What? oh.

and

Yaya wrote:
Best First wrote:

i'd find that a more credible response if you didn't insist on telling people how and why they think on every topic from comics upwards.
Who doesn't around here?

no one else that i can see. A witty, clever and well though out response though. well done.

If my opinion raises your blood pressure

ok, see if you can follow this; its not your opinion, its your insistence on assuming what other people think and why when you have no possible basis for doing so. If you want to know what other people think (and therefore actually contribue to the debate in any meaningful way) ask them, although i can see why this might be difficult when its so much easier to fit the opinions you manufacture on other people's bahlfs into your existing beliefs.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:53 pm

There are also those of us who have a strong set of beliefs, but don't really care if God exists or not. Buddhism has always allowed for the existence of the Hindu deities, but as far as Buddha was concerned, they were in just as much trouble as the rest of us.

It used to matter to me very much that God existed. As a result, I had a lot of trouble figuring out what was free will and what was God's will. After I stopped worrying about that, I discovered that I trusted my own decisions with far greater capacity.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:05 am

Shanti418 wrote: Atheist gives a poor man food because the man is hungry and it's the right thing to do
God believer gives a poor man food because God said to.
Either way, man gets food. Either way, good intentions were at the haart of the action.

This is true, the end result is the same, but the intentions, though good, are different. One is an action based on one's inner criteria of what is right and wrong. The other is based on the belief that God has set the criteria of right and wrong and the resulting action of kindness has this as its basis and therefore is an act of worship. If I believe God is the Creator, and that He is worthy of worship, not only am I performing a good act, but I am also fulfilling the purpose for which I was created. An atheist would not see it this way, and therein lies the difference in mindset.

When you say that the answer to that question decides how people will act and live their life and view the world, it subtly suggests that someone who doesn't believe in God is somewhow deficient or faces an uphill battle in forming their own morality.

This begs the question "What is morality?" Individuals who don't believe that God has set the criteria of right or wrong will certainly come to their own sense of morality. I personally believe God is the Definer, whereas an atheist may feel that they themselves define right from wrong. So again, its the mindset. Does God define or do I? These are vastly different concepts that lead to vastly different thought processes, which was the point I was trying to make.

Firstly you assume that because the question matters to you that everyone else must give it equal weight - when in fcat it seem likley that some people are entirely apathetic to such a question, some people live polytheistic societies and such a questions isn't applicable and some people do not really think much about this sort of thing because it never realy occurs to them, to name just a few shades of grey.

Finally, rather than tossing insults at my intelligence, my opinions, etc., you respond with a reasonable argument that I have no problem accepting as true. Perhaps I should have been more careful, and phrased my statement as "the question of whether God exists and is responsible for my ultimate destination based on His criteria of Right and Wrong, or whether God does not exist at all and rotting in my grave will be my destination is not a trivial one." If you believe one or the other, can we then agree that the difference is not trivial?

Secondly you create a false schism between nonbelievers and believers, not only does this ignore the above facet of the import people apply to such a question but it dismisses the notion of agnosticism which clearly exists

Again, two reasonable retorts in a row that actually make sense and have no major insults tossed at yours truly.

Thirdly you assume that just because you cannot comprehend someone elses mindset that this must be true of all others, however you miss the concept of empathy that is essential to any discussion of different points of view or understanding the actions of others.

Empathy for others pain, yes. We all hurt and know what it feels like to hurt, and so, we can reach out to those who are hurting. But can one who doesn't believe in God understand one who does to the point that they can tolerate each other? We only need to look as far as this message board to find those who exude hate at those who call themselves followers of religion or believers in God. Is that empathy? Is it empathy that some say I believe in God, and others bash him or her for it? That's not empathy, that's intolerance. Tolerance is a two-way street. If one wishes to be tolerated for having their own individual ideas and concepts, then they should in turn tolerate the one who says they are held back for believing or acting a certain way because they believe God has instructed them not to.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:10 am

sprunkner wrote: It used to matter to me very much that God existed. As a result, I had a lot of trouble figuring out what was free will and what was God's will. After I stopped worrying about that, I discovered that I trusted my own decisions with far greater capacity.

What separates mankind from the rest of God's creation is that He actually bestowed on man free will. To almost everything else, like trees, rocks, angels, etc., there is no free will.

Therefore, the decisions we make are certainly our own but are known to God, as nothing escapes His awareness.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:34 am

What does your God do all day? Where does he live? Where did he come from? 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? Where does the Holy Spirit come into this? What are the function of angels? If God's all powerful, why does he need helpers? For that matter, if God's all powerful, why did it take him seven days to create the world? 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 does God look like? 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? Didn't God create this hell in the first place? If God's all powerful, why did he need a mortal being to save us from the hell that he created? If God is all powerful, why can he not speak to humans directly? Why does he need the angel Metatron? 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? 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? 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? If God created all people, did he not, in fact, create both the sets of "Adam and Eve" as well as "Adam and Steve?"

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:54 am

Yaya wrote:
Shanti418 wrote: Atheist gives a poor man food because the man is hungry and it's the right thing to do
God believer gives a poor man food because God said to.
Either way, man gets food. Either way, good intentions were at the haart of the action.
This is true, the end result is the same, but the intentions, though good, are different. One is an action based on one's inner criteria of what is right and wrong. The other is based on the belief that God has set the criteria of right and wrong and the resulting action of kindness has this as its basis and therefore is an act of worship. If I believe God is the Creator, and that He is worthy of worship, not only am I performing a good act, but I am also fulfilling the purpose for which I was created. An atheist would not see it this way, and therein lies the difference in mindset.

When you say that the answer to that question decides how people will act and live their life and view the world, it subtly suggests that someone who doesn't believe in God is somewhow deficient or faces an uphill battle in forming their own morality.
This begs the question "What is morality?" Individuals who don't believe that God has set the criteria of right or wrong will certainly come to their own sense of morality. I personally believe God is the Definer, whereas an atheist may feel that they themselves define right from wrong. So again, its the mindset. Does God define or do I? These are vastly different concepts that lead to vastly different thought processes, which was the point I was trying to make.

But God's not sitting downtown e-mailing everyone his criteria. All you have is an old book that's been rewritten and revised and reinterpreted by a multitude of humans hands throughout the centuries.

AND coincidentally, dealing with some of the more major themes and/or tenets of Christ, it just so happens that those same ideals are found at the heart of the other major world religions as well.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:07 pm

Shanti418 wrote:
Yaya wrote:
Shanti418 wrote: But God's not sitting downtown e-mailing everyone his criteria. All you have is an old book that's been rewritten and revised and reinterpreted by a multitude of humans hands throughout the centuries.

AND coincidentally, dealing with some of the more major themes and/or tenets of Christ, it just so happens that those same ideals are found at the heart of the other major world religions as well.

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

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:14 pm

Yaya wrote:
sprunkner wrote: It used to matter to me very much that God existed. As a result, I had a lot of trouble figuring out what was free will and what was God's will. After I stopped worrying about that, I discovered that I trusted my own decisions with far greater capacity.
What separates mankind from the rest of God's creation is that He actually bestowed on man free will. To almost everything else, like trees, rocks, angels, etc., there is no free will.

Therefore, the decisions we make are certainly our own but are known to God, as nothing escapes His awareness.

But if he has consciousness, he would surely want us to make certain decisions and avoid others, right? He is a loving Father. My father suggests avoiding certain decisions and following others all the time. He's not always right, but he acts out of my best interests, for sure.

So why would God have a "plan" for us, then give us free will? Only in order to follow that plan? I'd much rather believe that "God" is a kind of creative force, one that we channel when we love, create and make a wise decision. He must be a means to an end, not an end of himself.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:43 pm

Yaya wrote:
Shanti418 wrote:
Yaya wrote:
Um. I'm not Christian, nor do I follow a book that has been altered time and time again.

Okay, so what religion are you? And what holy book is involved?

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:59 pm

Yaya wrote:Perhaps I should have been more careful, and phrased my statement as "the question of whether God exists and is responsible for my ultimate destination based on His criteria of Right and Wrong, or whether God does not exist at all and rotting in my grave will be my destination is not a trivial one." If you believe one or the other, can we then agree that the difference is not trivial?

Um...I still think it's kind of trivial - after all, you'll still be rotting in your grave, right? Whether or not your "soul" will be in "heaven" makes no difference at all in the real world. And whether a person does good deeds because they think it's the right thing to do or if they do them to try and impress their deity again makes no difference in the real world, unless of course they won't shut up about it.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:39 pm

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS MY BELIEF.

Professor Smooth wrote:What does your God do all day?

"All day" implies that He is subject to time. Time itself is a creation of His to which He has subjected other creation. He is not bound by time, by a beginning, or by an end. Because we live in time, its not possible for any one of us to fathom what a timeless existence must be like. He is, was, and always will be. This is an attribute that He shares with nothing else.

Where does he live?

Don't know. Whether He is everywhere or not in a physical sense is something I don't know, but His knowledge is certainly all-encompassing.

Where did he come from?

Again, see first response above. "Come from" implies a beginning in time, to which He is not bound. Science is based on the principles of time and space. God is not. That's why the best scientists can come up with for the creation of the universe is a Big Bang. Even if this were true, it still implies there was a beginning.

Since people seem to be fond of calling it a "he," does he have a penis?

Many religions believe God to be of human or animal quality, and hence have a sex. I do not subscribe to this. I captilize "He" to help make this distinction that God is genderless. In the Arabic language, when translated into English, "He", does not imply maleness until the Arabic to English translation is made. The same when God is referred to as "We" in the Koran. There is no real plurality in using the Arabic counterpart of "We" in the English language, yet when translated into English it seems there is more than one.

Where does the Holy Spirit come into this?

If you are referring to the Trinity, I don't believe in that either. I believe in one God, not one in three.

What are the function of angels?

Angels are another creation of God, and like tree, rocks, etc have no will of their own. They are beings of a devine light. Their tasks are numerous, and they carry out these tasks without question. The next question some might have is "Why does God need angels to perform tasks?" He doesn't, the same way He doesn't need people or any other creation to worship Him. Why He works as He does is knowledge only with Him.

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

As above, they are not "helpers". If He chose, everything could be done directly by Him. But He has not chose this way. Why this is so is for Him to know.

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?

The being known as Lucifer or Satan referred to in the Bible was not an angel, but one of the Jinn. Jinn are another race created of fire by God who have been given free will like that of human race. They have their own world outside of our own to which humans are not privy. It is shortsighted to think that we as people are the only race, and it would not surprise me that someday we will discover other races or aliens from other worlds do exist.

What does God look like?

No clue.

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?

It doesn't. I don't believe this to be true.

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

Don't believe this either. I believe every person will be responsible for their own actions, both good and bad. No other person will pay for my sins, and I will not pay for theirs. No other person will receive reward for my good intentions, and I will not receive reward for others good intentions.

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

He can. His choice to do so or not. He spoke to Adam and Moses both.

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?

God doesn't prize free will above all. He likes obedience.

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?

The rules and regulations of early mankind cannot be compared to present day life. There was no society then, no need for social order. Early man likely didn't even look a thing like us now. With early mankind, there was only one law. Believe in God. As humans spread (how they did this is not recorded as far as I know), social rules were introduced to help guide living in society and with others. Hence the coming of Prophets with guidance, both spiritual and practical.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:59 pm

Can we clear up the Moses thing? You believe God spoke directly to Moses? And told him to commit genocide in his name?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:11 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:Can we clear up the Moses thing? You believe God spoke directly to Moses? And told him to commit genocide in his name?

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.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:24 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:
Yaya wrote:Perhaps I should have been more careful, and phrased my statement as "the question of whether God exists and is responsible for my ultimate destination based on His criteria of Right and Wrong, or whether God does not exist at all and rotting in my grave will be my destination is not a trivial one." If you believe one or the other, can we then agree that the difference is not trivial?
Um...I still think it's kind of trivial - after all, you'll still be rotting in your grave, right? Whether or not your "soul" will be in "heaven" makes no difference at all in the real world. And whether a person does good deeds because they think it's the right thing to do or if they do them to try and impress their deity again makes no difference in the real world, unless of course they won't shut up about it.

This is perhaps the biggest difference between a believer in God( the way I believe in God), and an atheist.

Certainly, I believe both types of people will rot in their graves to be eaten by worms. But the spiritual person lives life under the following thought: "When I die, nothing will come with me except my actions and intentions, not even my body." If I have been blessed with wealth, I believe none of it will come with me or benefit me in the end once I'm dead unless I try to use my means to perform acts God has defined as good acts.

(And for the record, what I'm stating is what I believe, not what I necessarily do. I don't necessarily practice what I preach, but in matters of belief and for the purposes of discussion, I stick to what I believe to be right.)