The religious right or left?

[LordKathen]

Thank you Ronn. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by LordKathen: This has been one of the most interesting threads I have read in a long time. Most of you have come around to agreeing to disagree. Some have not, but owell. I am an athiest. I do not believe in anything supernatural or the like, period. Concerning the "faith healing", I would agree that there is much of a psycological placebo effect when you believe hard enough, sometimes. Ironically, to me, this aplies to faith in a superior being or creator as it goes. The more you believe "God" helps you, the more you actually are helping yourself, subconsciencely. The Bible is quite a masterpiece of literature, granted, but I believe its only that. Someone mentioned earlier the example of a modern author writing a book including buildings and such. You can certainly prove the buildings are (or we're) there, but if its fiction writing that doesn't prove the characters we're there, does it? There is plenty of artifacts and such that are mentioned in the Bible, maybe even historical evidence of certain characters, even Jesus himself, but no evidence of the supernatural elements of them. You could show me all of the thousands of documents proving certain places or people we're real, that doesn't prove the "stories" we're real. It seems to me that if it all could be proven to be fact, the "stories" of Christ that is, then you would not need faith, right? I mean is'nt that the point. Just thought I would put my input in before it gets heated in here again. Anyway, my opinion is only my opinion, so before anyone gets in a huff, remember that its only my opinion. I hope this is ok to post, but its not a gaming forum so maybe it will be alright with Choc. A great place to converse and debate with others solely about these topics. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php?s=...40cd96c68b3c1f

Hey Lord K, it's good to see you here again. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

I knew it would be just a matter of time before someone suggested that "faith healing" was merely a psychological placebe. Granted, the example I listed could fit into that category. After all, the burn is not actually healed, only the pain is removed. And I would be the first to agree that - if you have enough faith and expect it to work - then that increases the chances that it will. However, there is a BIG difference between removing (or overcoming) the sensory feeling of pain and actually restoring sight to a damaged eye (as in the case Yorick cited). The instantaneous repair of physically damaged tissue is much more difficult to explain away as a placebo effect. Mainly because the placebo effect suggests the human mind overcomes negative sensory input because the person believes strongly enough that the negative input will be cancelled. It's basically an example of mind over matter (to oversimplify). However, overcoming sensory input is far different from physically repairing damaged cells with the power of your mind.

Also, the "placebo effect" does not apply in my case for a couple of reasons. First of all, I realized going into surgery that I was in very critical condition - and I knew there was a chance I might not survive this time (I'd had many problems before with the chronic illnes - but nothing anywhere near this severe). I DID say a prayer before going into surgery, but it was a very weak prayer because I was in such intense pain that I couldn't focus my thoughts well enough for strong and coherent prayer.

Secondly, the one weak prayer I offered was the only one I was aware of - and I simply wasn't sure if it would be enough. Then I was taken directly to the O.R. and given anesthesia. The last conscious thought I had was my conversation with the anesthesiologist. He leaned down and said "I'm going to take away your pain." (through the drugs he was about to give me). I looked at him and said "YOU'RE the man I've been looking for since yesterday." My injuries had occurred over 30 hours BEFORE I was ever admitted to the O.R.

While I knew I was in critical condition, I did NOT know just HOW critical!!! When the surgery was finished, the surgeon came out to my wife and mother and asked them point blank if they believed in miracles. They both replied they did. "That's good," he said "because a miracle is the only thing that will save him now. I did what I could, but to be honost, it wasn't enough. Personally, I don't expect him to survive past the next 72 hours." My mom and wife broke down (of course) and went out to the waiting room. Someone asked my mom what was wrong and she told them...she then asked if everybody in the waiting room would pray with her for God to spare me. They did. A roomful of complete strangers joined my mom in pray on my behalf. Later that week (after the 72 hrs had passed), I had a visit from a coworker from back home. She told me that - in addition to the strangers in the Waiting Room that night - many, many people back home had also been praying for me. I worked at the local hospital which had around 300 employees. Everyone there knew how serious my condition was and several of them had called their pastors and fellow church members and began a series of "prayer chains" (where members of a church call other members and tell them to be praying for a specific person, family, or incident). So there were several dozen (perhaps over 100) people back home who were also going to God in prayer on my behalf.

The one thing that prevents this from being a placebo effect though is that I didn't know anything about any of these prayers at all !!! I wasn't even told what the surgeon had said until the critical 72 hours had passed...so I had no way of knowing that the surgeon had said I would die unless a miracle occurred nor did I have any way of knowing that several people (many of whom didn't even know me) were praying for my recovery. In order for the placebo effect to work, the subject HAS to be aware that some outside influence is supposed to be acting on their behalf, yet I had absolutely no knowledge of any of these events. So there was no way I could have exercised my faith enough to effect the miraculous recovery.

I'm not completely knocking what you say. I agree there are certain situations when it is applicable. But I also know from personal experience that there are other cases that completely refute the theory of the psychological placebo effect. There are some cases that simply cannot be explained by that phenomon.

Originally posted by LordKathen: This has been one of the most interesting threads I have read in a long time.

for me, this is the highest praise we can achieve. on behalf of all of us, thanks, LK. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: Hey Guys, First off...i'd check out http://www.ffrf.org before saying Jesus and Christianity is/was all love and peace. Jesus was pro-slavery, anti-woman, and intolerant of any religion other than his among many other things...as stated in the bible. Did you know God had 2 bears kill a bunch of children because they made fun of a bald prophet? Did you know he killed an inncent guy because Satan dared him to? As for Politics: Did you know Christianity was not a major aspect of America until the 1950's (it may seem like it, but that wasn't very long ago)?! Did you know most of our founding fathers were not at all religious? Anyways, more to the point for this post....the religious right is called such because it refers to a large group of people who support the republican platform and are religiously focused. They are not right wing because they are religious, they are simply both religious AND right wing. It is a designation for a very powerful political group that supports Republican politics.

I could write a post that comprehensively proves your accusations and assertions about Jesus are ridiculously incorrect.

Or I could write a post about how you are being spoonfed a load of horsemanure, and regurgitated others thoughts from that site you posted. Interesting quiz btw. A simple laymans understanding of the bible is enough to see through the bias, twisting and paraphrasing done to achieve such vitriolic demonisation of the Bible.

However I will instead focus on this:

Consider that I am wrong. Consider that all Christians are wrong. We are all deluded and mistaken about the world, and when we die we will cease to have any awareness and be nothing.

What do you gain in your efforts to sway us? To sway me? People like you, and the society you linked to, spend an awful amount of energy on a NEGATIVE. That is, attempting to remove from people the very thing that gives them joy, peace, happiness, community, love, self acceptance, self esteem, freedom from substance abuse, or many other addictions.

You are working to remove peoples "reason for existence" remove peoples self discovered answers to the reason for life itself.

What do you gain again? What do you walk away with? Best case scenario for you is that I am wrong... what is it you achieve again?

I on the other hand, labour to give people hope, love, community, and self acceptance, relational skills, increased ability to express, search, discover and think.

If I am wrong, I and those of my faith, still walk away with a wonderful experience of this life. The PERCEPTION I have due to knowing Jesus makes this life an increasingly amazingly positive experience, and becomes more positive the more I know Jesus.

If I am right, I live for eternity. I will spend an eternity with the God I spent time getting to know while within his artwork. An eternity of love.

Positive either way.

[ 10-29-2003, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and ate forty and two children of them." (II Kings 2:23-24) I'm not saying I believe it. I'm saying that if one believes the bible is infallable one must believe this. How can I have good thoughts about a God who would do this?

First up it shows the accuracy of the Jewish historians that they recorded even contentious issues.

Secondly it shows that ELISHA had a fatal temper, not God. It said Elisha cursed them. Sure, in the name of God, but if God had given him power, shown him the way the universe works, and Elisha used it... then Elisha is at fault.

God has given me a musical gift. I can bless people or curse people with it. He's not about to suddenly make me inept at music simply because I choose to use my music to say, ruin a politicians career is he? God allows free will.

If Elisha read the bear attacks as being a result of his curse, then he would probably been more careful the next time.

However, the bible doesn't say hat God sent the bears. It doesn't even say they occured as a result of the curse. It makes no judgement, and simply records the attack after the insult and curse.

Is a person who believes in Karma evil? Is Karma itself evil? If you're a hindu who ridicules a hindu Holy man, who's healing people and teaching people, would not Karmic retribution be pretty high?

I don't think you've looked at the picture too well.

Finally, it does serve as a warning about harrassing men of God who are imperfect and have bad tempers.

Good thing I've never cursed anyone in the name of God.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: Two bears came out of the forest and killed them all. --Note that this bloody execution for a childish prank is the work of the God of the bible. Is a person like this worthy of worship? Is this "pro-life"? "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and ate forty and two children of them." (II Kings 2:23-24) I'm not saying I believe it. I'm saying that if one believes the bible is infallable one must believe this. How can I have good thoughts about a God who would do this?

I find your last statement to be very interesting, Pikachu. At first you say that the bears killing the children is "the work of God". Then you say you don't necessarily believe it. But then you say "How can I have good thoughts about a God who would do this?" So it sounds to me like you do believe it, at least a little. In any case, you're certainly using it as a reason to denounce a God you claim to not even believe in. Rather confusing when you think about it.

As for the question of how you can have good thoughts about God's character, the answer is simple....look to the Bible, the WHOLE Bible - not just selected snippets. You say that "if one believes the Bible is infallible, one must believe the incident with the bears also". Fair enough. Let me turn that around for you. If you believe this incident is true and reflects an aspect of God's nature, then you must follow your own advice and also believe the rest of the incidents listed in the Bible are true...including the ones showing God's Love and Mercy. Just a few examples of these include...

1) Jesus staying the hand of His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane when the guards came to take him away. One of his disciples cuts the ear off a guard. Jesus tells him to put his weapon down, then he lays his hand on the side of the guards head and heals the wound his disciple created.

2) While hanging on the Cross in immense physical agony, Jesus calls out to God, His Father, to have mercy and forgiveness on the soldiers that are mocking him and taunting him. If Jesus and God were really the spiteful entities your Free Thinkers site would have us to believe, wouldn't have been more in character for Jesus to spit upon them and curse them? Yet he had nothing but compassion for them even as they mocked his pain and torture.

3) As the time of His death drew near, Jesus gathered His disciples together and endowed them with a portion of His Godly power, so that they could carry on His ministry and could now perform miracles of healing and other acts just as He had. His final instructions to them were to continue to spread His word and do good works in His name.

There are countless more, if you care to look for them.

The practice of choosing one or two particular verses and using them as "evidence" that God was really a malevolent being is a common one. And it is always accompanied with the accusation that Christians "pick and choose" which parts of the Bible they want to believe, since these individual verses are sometimes hard to counter when presented in such an isolated fashion. However, the accusation is just as true the other way around. Many atheists (not all, but several) also "pick and choose" which parts of the Bible they want to attack. I have never seen an atheist try to hold the account of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross up for ridicule. Why? Because it represents the ultimate sacrifice AND the ultimate LOVE a person can have for another. (For no greater love is their than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend). Well Jesus WAS a friend to every man, woman, and child that has ever lived and He DID willingly lay down his life so that each and every one of us could receive free forgiveness of our sins and have eternal life.

As for the site you linked to earlier, it has already been well-rebutted by Ronn Bmann and Yorick. I will simply add that it was almost humorous how the authors of the site went out of their way to deliberately misinterpret specifically selected passages. It reminded me very much of an argument Christian groups used to use in their denouncement of AD&D (a game I happen to enjoy very much).

In AD&D, every character has 6 physical traits. Of these, the most difficult to define (in game terms) was Charisma. Somewhere (maybe in one of the books, maybe from another source) it was mentioned that Hitler was a good example of someone with a high Charisma. Christian groups took that one snippet as "evidence" that anyone who played AD&D also thought that Hitler was a great man. Geez, talk about getting the entire picture completely out of focus. The point was that Hitler was a rather popular - and extremely effective - leader despite committing these acts..which proved that he had a high Charisma.

Your Free Thinkers site does much the same thing. It casts Jesus as a warmonger because he said he had come to "take up the sword". Of course, they don't follow up with that by trying to find a verse where Jesus actually DOES take up a sword (mainly because it never happened...and secondly because Jesus was speaking metaphorically, not literally). But that's the problem with most of the "quotes" on that site. They take metaphorical statements made by Jesus and claim they were literal - and then offer them as "proof" that Jesus was really a bad and mean person.

If such accusations make you feel more comfortable about your choice of beliefs, that's fine. But don't criticize Christians for refusing to "look at the whole picture" when the site you use to support your claims is just as guilty of ignoring the "complete picture".

[Maelakin]

Disclaimer: Yorick, I’m not taking pot shots at you here. I believe we already resolved this issue but it makes for a good comparison. Please don’t take offense.

Earlier in the discussion pertaining to religion, Yorick and I had the same disagreement as it seems Cerek and Yorick are having with Pikachu. The site that Pikachu linked is trying to point out how Christians are wrong, but you can’t do that. People are never wrong when it pertains to what they believe. It is an opinion, and as such it is uncontestable.

As for the Bible, the book is mostly written in metaphoric form. This makes it very hard to take any snippet of the work and use it to support any claim. Without the supporting material that exists elsewhere in the work it doesn’t make sense.

We can disagree, we can argue, but we cannot be wrong. This is actually what I was trying to portray to Yorick, because once that is out of the way, I really enjoy discussing theological issues and concepts with people who are knowledgeable within their belief system. Comparing and contrasting during a discussion leads to greater understanding, and I have found doing so actually leads to many parallels people weren’t even aware existed.

Yorick,

If my assumption is correct that the argument concerning fact vs. opinion is settled, I would enjoy entering a discussion with you pertaining to the differences and similarities between our differing viewpoints. I didn’t want to start a thread pertaining to this sort of discussion until things settled down. I’m not looking for a religion vs. philosophy (I say philosophy because my beliefs are based upon philosophical principles, not mystical) war.

i'd like to second maelakin's final thought. i'd welcome such a thread.

i was brought up catholic, and after turning away from the religion, i've explored a number of different belief systems, some in more detail than others. the most fascinating discovery was how much they have in common. the next most fascinating thing was the realisation that so many wars were fought over such small differences.

[Pikachu_PM]

Wow! This forum is great....so many smart people!!

O.k. First off let me explain where I fall with my beliefs. If you ask me if I believe in God and find the bible to be an infallible book then I will tell you that, while I certainly think it *might* be possible He exist and the bible is infallible that I seriosly doubt it. The bible was written by man (5 different men, in fact) and whether you believe it was inspired by God or not the fact is man is fallible, whether God is or not.

One of the reasons that the bible has a tendency to focus on the greatness of the second son's through most of the book is due to much of the bible being written by the people of the Northern tribes of the early Isrealites. The Northern tribes were, in effect, 'second sons' of the Southern Isrealites, as when the King (I forget his name) died, he had two sons and two high priest. Each priest supported one of the sons. The first son kept the kingdom and declared there to be only one high prisest. He banhished the second son and his priest to Northern Isreal. I have not expalined this well, but suffice to say, biases have pretty much been proven in the bibles writing.

Now, if you ask me if I am sprititual, the answer is certainly, yes...just in a different way. There may in fact be a god, but I see 'Him' more as the total consciences of 'us' with us being the ENTIRE universe. We may think we are each different ppl, but in truth we are one in the same. Each of us are the universe becoming self aware of itself. I believe there is a higher power to the universe, but I do not believe a single one of the religions have it all right...or all wrong. I believe in tolerance, and I believe life itself to be a miracle and sacred regardless of what people believe. I would not want to worship any real or false God who would damn a 'non-believer' to eternal hell fire simply because he doubted---even if he did good works his entire life.

My problem with a lot of religions, as institutions, is that for all their preaching of good works, they cause more pain and suffering than not. Do you know how many countless lives have been ended in the name of God? How many candles have been put out, never to burn again, simply because they disagreed with a more powerful cultures spiritual beliefs?

Do you know how many people out there believe their Religion is the one TRUE religion. Do you know how many different religions believe this with as much certainty as as any Christian? Well, only one religion IF ANY can be right..what makes you so certain it is yours?

Maybe it is the one true religion, but the fact that most Christians won't even acknowledge that it MIGHT not be is ludacrous (in my opinion). I'm not asking people to renounce their faith, just THINK as much as they FEEL.

Ultimately I am not anti-religion...what I am against is people using an authority who MAY OR MAY NOT exist through writings that may or may not be the work of said authority IF he/she exist to justify, througout history, opinions and actions that are at there very nature destructive and and devisive.

Lastly, i resent any implication that one must be religious to be a good person...in actuallity some of the greatest humanitarians of the world have been either athiest or agnositic. I believe that once one excepts that deeds are more important than belief, we can all realize that for better or worse we are all part of the same place and that our differences are what makes us stronger...not weaker

[ 10-30-2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Pikachu_PM ]

[Yorick]

Pikachu, I feel I have to pull you up on some of your "facts".

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: [QB] The bible was written by man (5 different men, in fact) and whether you believe it was inspired by God or not the fact is man is fallible, whether God is or not.

Not sure where you got that information, but the bible was in fact written by over 40 authors. Not merely 5. The consistency, flow, accuracy and conhesion despite having over 40 authors (with years seperating them all) is one testament to divine inspiration.

The New testament alone was written by John, Paul, Peter, Jude, Luke James, Mark and Matthew. The old testament writers include Moses, David, and Solomon to name the tip of the iceberg.

By comparison, the Qu'ran was 'recited' by Muhammad.

Christians believe the Bible is the "inspired word of God", not the dictated word of God as Muslims believe the Qu'ran is. As such, the human element is taken into account. We believe that what resulted is what God intended his message for us to be.

One of the reasons that the bible has a tendency to focus on the greatness of the second son's through most of the book is due to much of the bible being written by the people of the Northern tribes of the early Isrealites. The Northern tribes were, in effect, 'second sons' of the Southern Isrealites, as when the King (I forget his name) died, he had two sons and two high priest. Each priest supported one of the sons. The first son kept the kingdom and declared there to be only one high prisest. He banhished the second son and his priest to Northern Isreal. I have not expalined this well, but suffice to say, biases have pretty much been proven in the bibles writing.

I am not sure what you mean here at all. What do you mean the bible is focussing on the greatness of the second son? Many great men and women of the bible were not "second sons".

The King you are referring to is Solomon. He died and his son Rehoboam ruled all Israel. The "north" - which was in fact all the tribes of Israel except Judah - rebelled under Jeroboam. But jeroboam was not a second son of Solomon. His father was Nebat.

As i said, the "north" was all the other tribes except for Judah. Now, even Judah himself was I believe the fourth son of Jacob. Neither the oldest, nor the second oldest. To my knowledge Reuben and then Simeon were.

As to bias.... yes bias is an inescapable reality. Even so, the bible writers recorded their losses, their humiliations, and their leaders faults. For example King David, hero of all Israel, military genius, musician and songwriter of incredible renown is recorded in the bible as committing one of the worst sins. Essentially killing a loyal warrior so he could take his wife. Plus, Davids own sons rebelled against him, twice.

Honesty, accuracy, truth. Even when it was humiliatingly painful.

Now, if you ask me if I am sprititual, the answer is certainly, yes...just in a different way. There may in fact be a god, but I see 'Him' more as the total consciences of 'us' with us being the ENTIRE universe. We may think we are each different ppl, but in truth we are one in the same. Each of us are the universe becoming self aware of itself.

Sure... pantheism. My problem with pantheism is that if it's right, the universe is having a big wank. Whereas Christianity paints a picture of a creator God loving us. Loving another person vs masturbating. Which would you do if you were omnipotent and able to do anything and everything?

I believe there is a higher power to the universe, but I do not believe a single one of the religions have it all right...or all wrong. I believe in tolerance, and I believe life itself to be a miracle and sacred regardless of what people believe. I would not want to worship any real or false God who would damn a 'non-believer' to eternal hell fire simply because he doubted---even if he did good works his entire life.

Sounds good to me... However, I believe God will not force people to pend eternity with him, who don't want to be with him. I don't see heaven as a reward for being a nice person, and hell as being a punishment for being a bad person, but heaven as spending an eternity with God, and hell being eternal seperation from God.

if God gave us free will, he's not going to force us to love him, nor spend an eternity with someone we don't want to be with.

Hence during this life we make that choice. Jesus offers eternal life with him, and we can take it or throw it away. I know where I'm going.

My problem with a lot of religions, as institutions, is that for all their preaching of good works, they cause more pain and suffering than not. Do you know how many countless lives have been ended in the name of God? How many candles have been put out, never to burn again, simply because they disagreed with a more powerful cultures spiritual beliefs?

I don't know too many actually. What I do know is that politicians and people with power - desiring more power and money - have USED RELIGION as a way to motivate, justify and pursue their own agenda.

Do you know how many people out there believe their Religion is the one TRUE religion. Do you know how many different religions believe this with as much certainty as as any Christian? Well, only one religion IF ANY can be right..what makes you so certain it is yours?

The certainty that comes from thoroughly investigating those other paths and finding mine to be the only one that removes WORKS from the list of essentials. The only one that speaks of a God that loves me so much, he would die for me to be with him. This correllates with all the love I see in the world.

A certainty from seeing my God work daily, physically impacting my life and senses, and a certainty, that no matter whether others are wrong or not, no matter whether others are know him or not, or whether they will be with him in heaven or not, I HAVE AN ASSURANCE of the path I am on.

I also see the benefits in THIS LIFE that knowing Jesus and following in this manner brings. As a humanitarian alone, I am convinced that the Hindu caste system is a form of apartheid, that Buddhism followed to the letter results in a reduced experience of the positives of life - such as embracing love and enjoying positive experiences with relish - that Islam keeps people in fear and obesience, and that reincarnation belief encourages people to keep the status quo, that the poor and opressed are living out punishments from anoter life, and we should not help them.

My strong feelings about other paths are due to the negatives they accord living in this life COMPARED TO the positives people experience when turning from Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam. I personally know people released from the shackles I am speaking of, which only convinces me, that WE NEED JESUS in this world.

Maybe it is the one true religion, but the fact that most Christians won't even acknowledge that it MIGHT not be is ludacrous (in my opinion). I'm not asking people to renounce their faith, just THINK as much as they FEEL.

Faith involves the existence of doubt. Pragmatic certainty is not an evil. You may as well assume you exist. It will mean you have a more fun life. Look at roleplay. It's better when you dive in convincing yourself it's real. When it's not, it's not as fun.

So life may all be an illusion. May as well dive in while we're here, rather than get to the end and think... bugger... I wish I'd appreciated sunlight more, while I experienced it.

Ultimately I am not anti-religion...what I am against is people using an authority who MAY OR MAY NOT exist through writings that may or may not be the work of said authority IF he/she exist to justify, througout history, opinions and actions that are at there very nature destructive and and devisive.

I agree

Lastly, i resent any implication that one must be religious to be a good person...in actuallity some of the greatest humanitarians of the world have been either athiest or agnositic. I believe that once one excepts that deeds are more important than belief, we can all realize that for better or worse we are all part of the same place and that our differences are what makes us stronger...not weaker

Christianity is not a way to become perfect. It is a way to have a relationship with God. To that end, it can also be argued that perfect people don't need Jesus. That the more sinful a person initially was, the more Jesus grace worked in their life, and the more love they were shown.

One doesn't need to be religious to be a good person, and one doesn't need to be a good person to be religious.

However, if you want to know God in an intimate personal way where he speaks, effects your life and carries you through your weakness, you may want to consider accepting Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that fills your life as a result.