Go back
Religion (or lack of)

Religion (or lack of)

General

h

e2

Joined
29 Jun 03
Moves
3535
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Yes. I'm definitly "Here". That's perfect proof.
As a piece of evidence, you're being here (or there) could be used to prove creation just as well as evolution. I mean, how if you asked whether I knew creation occurred and I said, "well, I'm here"? It's a small piece of merely circumstantial evidence. Surely you have more? I do. 😉
But I'm not as concerned just now with proof for either model, so much as wondering: if we can't understand our evolution for being within a closed system, does this mean we can understand nothing about our evolution (including whether or not it really happens)? You have indicated that there are some things (or at least one thing) which we can understand about it. That answers my question, and so I thank you.

S
BentnevolentDictater

x10,y45,z-88,t3.1415

Joined
26 Jan 03
Moves
1644
Clock
10 Sep 03
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by huntingbear
As a piece of evidence, you're being here (or there) could be used to prove creation just as well as evolution. I mean, how if you asked whether I knew creation occurred and I said, "well, I'm here"? It's a small piece of merely ci ...[text shortened]... understand about it. That answers my question, and so I thank you.
So you are saying that god created me. I respond that if you are right then "IT"... (god(s) of any/all types) doesn't care if i believe or not. I don't believe... in spades. Ipso facto what is your point? If i meet any gods, the first thing i'll ask is if it cares what i believe. If any of them do... then i'll worry. Schizo superior/supreme beings worry me more than schizo police states. Just barely. Still waiting for first contact, but not holding my breath...

We can't "completely" understand "human nature" by studying our own evolution. But we can do "pretty good". That is why we study the evolution of other species. We can understand our "physical evolution" as that is imperical. "Animal us" vs. "mental us" is the non-imperical issue raised here. I don't want to get off on a tangent here. I responded above to IvanH concerning somthing else entirely. Let's keep it in that context, ie, "how a religionless person handles guilt and anxiety."

rwingett
Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by huntingbear
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]When (not if) you make a mistake, own up to it to all involved, including yourself. Make things right. Whatever it takes.
. . .
There is no guilt or need for forgiveness if you anchor your existence in MAKING THE HUMAN RACE BETTER by being a conscious member


I quite agree that when one does something ...[text shortened]... 's word. How am I to know if this (or any other) ethical system is good, or right, or whatever?[/b]
Guilt arises when somebody actually does something wrong. It is the consequence of a wrong action. One of the most contemptible things about christianity is that it presupposes guilt, and indeed thrives on the attribution of guilt. In order for the christian concept of salvation to be relevant, its adherants must first be convinced that they are guilty (regardless of their actions) and that they are indeed in need of salvation in the first place. Just in case there should be anyone who has not commited any transgressions worthy of feeling guilty about, christianity has thrown in the concept of original sin, thereby attempting to make sure that everyone has his prescribed allotment of guilt.

But christianity has nothing to offer someone who lives a normal, happy life, and who is not burdened by the christian presupposition of guilt. In order for christianity to gain a foothold, it must first convince people that they are unworthy, sinful, guilty, and immoral creatures so that it can then introduce the concept of salvation. The Church has done a very profitable business by doing its part to break down the human concept of self worth, and thereby fostering a dependency on its institutions.

But I know that I have have been a responsible citizen and have lived a decent life. I utterly reject your concept of guilt, and have no need whatsoever for salvation.

P
Mystic Meg

tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4

Joined
27 Mar 03
Moves
17242
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
Guilt arises when somebody actually does something wrong. It is the consequence of a wrong action. One of the most contemptible things about christianity is that it presupposes guilt, and indeed thrives on the attribution of guilt. In order for the christian concept of salvation to be relevant, its adherants must first be convinced that they are guilty (reg ...[text shortened]... decent life. I utterly reject your concept of guilt, and have no need whatsoever for salvation.
I agree on your points about the church... but you really think there is not any kind of higher power... something more mystical than science can explain??

Uh, I take that back... I feel science can explain any higher power... But I still feel there is something out there. Something we can't understand.

O
Digital Blasphemy

Omnipresent

Joined
16 Feb 03
Moves
21533
Clock
10 Sep 03
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

In hindsight, would I create this thread again? Absolutely not. 🙁

CP

Asheville, N.C. USA

Joined
03 Sep 03
Moves
28378
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
Guilt arises when somebody actually does something wrong. It is the consequence of a wrong action. One of the most contemptible things about christianity is that it presupposes guilt, and indeed thrives on the attribution of guilt. In order for the christian concept of salvation to be relevant, its adherants must first be convinced that they are guilty (reg ...[text shortened]... decent life. I utterly reject your concept of guilt, and have no need whatsoever for salvation.
It's not that Christianity presupposes guilt, but rather exposes a sinful nature in all men and women. If you live in "the flesh", you are living by your own standards and morals, as you see fit accordingly. If someone lives in "the Spirit", then they try to live by God's standards according to his Commandments.

-I didn't teach my 5 year old to steal! , but it was in his fleshly nature to desire that candy and take it when he was told not to.
-I didn't teach him to lie!, but it was in his fleshly nature to say he didn't hit his sister, when I saw him do it, and he knew that he was going to be in trouble.

Christians can't or should'nt judge themselves by others and see if they are any better or worse. They have got to judge themselves by God's standards and his "Word". They have to fight against the fleshly nature and seek "His" face and "His" will for their life.

As for guilt? True! When a person realizes that they have fallen short of God's glory and am not and cannot measure up to His standards, then they feel guity for their sin, and that's when some call upon Jesus name and ask him to come into their heart.

Now, I'm not making an arguement! I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions and the Lord does allow freedom of chioce!
I just wanted to say a so about an issue.

h

e2

Joined
29 Jun 03
Moves
3535
Clock
10 Sep 03
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
Guilt arises when somebody actually does something wrong. It is the consequence of a wrong action.

Agreed.

One of the most contemptible things about christianity is that it presupposes guilt, and indeed thrives on the attribution of guilt.
It identifies guilt, which as a matter of fact is universal in the human race. The guilt is not "supposed," pre- or otherwise. It is there. None of us is perfect.

In order for the christian concept of salvation to be relevant, its adherants must first be convinced that they are guilty (regardless of their actions) and that they are indeed in need of salvation in the first place.

Regardless of their actions? Ridiculous. We have all done wrong, and that's that. Christianity does not say to the innocent, "you are guilty."

Just in case there should be anyone who has not commited any transgressions worthy of feeling guilty about, christianity has thrown in the concept of original sin, thereby attempting to make sure that everyone has his prescribed allotment of guilt.

You are no theologian, as I'm sure you'd admit. Your understanding of original sin is inaccurate, and for the record it was not "thrown in" by Christians but predates the Christian faith. You set up as Christianity a parody of your own design. This you then attack and successfully reveal to be weak. That we have sinned "in Adam" is a concept misunderstood to mean that we are guilty for what he and Eve did. That is a distortion of the truth. We all have enough sin of our own and don't need an ancestor's guilt. No one is perfect, and what in you (or me) makes up the difference between you (or me) and perfection is precisely: transgression.

In order for christianity to gain a foothold, it must first convince people that they are unworthy, sinful, guilty, and immoral creatures so that it can then introduce the concept of salvation

This is quite true. It does nothing, however, to advance your contention that the sin and guilt are not, in fact, real. But it is quite true that one must recognize one's guilt before acknowledging any reason to accept forgiveness.

The Church has done a very profitable business by doing its part to break down the human concept of self worth, and thereby fostering a dependency on its institutions.

Which church? My own makes no profit. My pastor "cuts his hours" for the sake of the church budget. This means he does as much work as ever but gets paid less. Besides, my concept of my worth and others' worths increased tremendously upon realizing that God loved us enough to die for us, rather than just to leave us in our sins. I am dependent on no institution, but I admit dependence on God. Here again we find you propping up, only in order to knock down, a distortion of the Christian faith. I think in particular you like to attribute the worst qualities of the medieval Catholic church to all Christian organizations. Intellectually, that would be a no-no.

But I know that I have have been a responsible citizen and have lived a decent life. I utterly reject your concept of guilt, and have no need whatsoever for salvation.

Are you perfect?
Anyway, you are certainly free, with the freedom of will given you by God, to deny your guilt and to reject His forgiveness. It is the sick who need a doctor, after all, and if you think you're healthy enough you don't call one.

rwingett
Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Phlabibit
I agree on your points about the church... but you really think there is not any kind of higher power... something more mystical than science can explain??

Uh, I take that back... I feel science can explain any higher power... But I still feel there is something out there. Something we can't understand.
I don't see how science could explain a "higher power". A higher power would by definition stand outside the laws of nature and the reach of science, that is why it would be a higher power. Whether such a thing is possible is another matter altogether.

There are many things out there that we do not understand. That is no reason to invent the concept of "god" or some other higher power to try to explain them away.

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49429
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Omnislash
In hindsight, would I create this thread again? Absolutely not. 🙁


Why not ? Are you disappointed ?

In what way did it fail to fulfil your expectations ?

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49429
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
I change my moral system so that what I did is no longer wrong 😏


I know that you're just kidding, but this will happen when the Authority on moral questions(God) is replaced by another (self proclaimed) authority (man).

P
Mystic Meg

tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4

Joined
27 Mar 03
Moves
17242
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't see how science could explain a "higher power". A higher power would by definition stand outside the laws of nature and the reach of science, that is why it would be a higher power. Whether such a thing is possible is another matter altogether.

There are many things out there that we do not understand. That is no reason to invent the concept of "god" or some other higher power to try to explain them away.
A higher power than ours... IF it exists it must be able to be explained by science... perhaps not a science the we have access to (yet).

P-

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49429
Clock
10 Sep 03
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by StarValleyWy


1 - Develop a personal ethos for ....
IvanH: Thats quite a task. You have to invent the wheel over and over again. Isn't there a Freethinkers Tradition in this field ?

I grant to you, the second person, the same rights and responsibilities as I grant myself. (Do unto others as you would be done by)
IvanH: What happens if these rights collide with eachother. Who will be the authority to make a decision in this matter and therefore limit you or the other in your or his absolute freedom.

Joe

S
BentnevolentDictater

x10,y45,z-88,t3.1415

Joined
26 Jan 03
Moves
1644
Clock
10 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Originally posted by StarValleyWy


1 - Develop a personal ethos for ....
IvanH: Thats quite a task. You have to invent the wheel over and over again. Isn't there a Freethinkers Tradition in this field ?

I grant to you, the second person, the same rights and responsibilities as I grant myself. (Do unto others as you would be done by)
IvanH: ...[text shortened]... ion in this matter and therefore limit you or the other in your or his absolute freedom.

Joe
What wheel? You mean you don't have a set of ethics? Time to get one. Quite a task? All conscious thought is "quite a task". More people should endulge.

You prove my point about needing a leader. You don't get the idea that the other guy is to be given the benefit of the doubt. Always.

The reason I say you don't get it... and never will... is because you mentioned not a word about RESPONSIBILITY in your post. Everything to you is just a "right". If you don't understand it's relative importance... forget it. None of this will make sense to you.

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49429
Clock
14 Sep 03
4 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
What wheel? You mean you don't have a set of ethics? Time to get one. Quite a task? All conscious thought is "quite a task". More people should endulge.

You prove my point about needing a leader. You don't get the idea that the ...[text shortened]... ve importance... forget it. None of this will make sense to you.
" ... forget it. None of this will make sense to you." StarValleyWy.

Yes, I admit it ...
and I really appreciate you're giving me the benefit of the doubt.Always. 😵

CP

Asheville, N.C. USA

Joined
03 Sep 03
Moves
28378
Clock
14 Sep 03
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
" ... forget it. None of this will make sense to you." StarValleyWy.

Yes, I admit it ...
and I really appreciate you're giving me the benefit of the doubt.Always. 😵
I'm not a wrestling coach, but I must say that Ivanhoe executed a great slam in a nice way.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.