23 Dec 03
Very good quote. As I've noted, I absolutely do not believe in a higher power of any kind. But I am the first to say in a discussion/argument about religion, that I could be wrong, and if I am then that REALLY sucks for me...it's going to be a loooooong eternity! 😳 But there is no way that I am going to mold my life around something I don't know to be true. Am I praying to God, or am I talking to thin air?
"I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means."
- Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial
[/b]
On another note, I had one argument where the opponent said it is "safer" to believe in God- if you're wrong, well, then you're wrong and that's that. But if you're right, you are going to heaven and there's no need to worry about hell. So to be on the safe side, believe in God. HA! I couldn't believe my ears! So create this whole belief system in my mind and live my life in a certain way, myself almost subconciously of something just IN CASE there is a heaven or hell? 🙄
23 Dec 03
Yeah, I know that the country you're brought up in, and the way you are brought up are imortant, but I know o someone who's parents are Egyptian, and I think they are muslim, but she chose to become Christian. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a teen reblling sort of thing (she's not the type), so why? I realise her reasons where her own, and not something you can tell me about, but perhaps someone had a similair experience, or knows someone who has?
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by ncrosbyI heard another quote on this from the author Terry Pratchett. I can't remember the exact quote, but someone asked him if he thought he should believe in God 'just in case' and he said words to the effect that he didn't think he'd want to spend eternity with a god who would take 'just-in-casers'
On another note, I had one argument where the opponent said it is "safer" to believe in God- if you're wrong, well, then you're wrong and that's that. But if you're right, you are going to heaven and there's no need to worry about hell. So to be on the safe side, believe in God. HA! I couldn't believe my ears! So create this whole belief system in ...[text shortened]... ertain way, myself almost subconciously of something just IN CASE there is a heaven or hell? 🙄[/b]
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by qetutor1. Are you claiming that, say, medieval European society was morally enlightened? (or at least compared to us)
As another areligious person I hereby give my wholehearted support to Christianity. It is amazing to me how our technilogically adept, morally retarded society is sweeping us along to disaster. The wisdom of the Bible leads to a wholesome and meaningful life even if that seems outdated to so many of us now. Govt rules reward cheating, welfare has ruined gen ...[text shortened]... person in my personal life even if I can't honestly believe in God, Jesus and everlasting life
2. Why is the Bible such a good moral guide? If you don't believe it's the word of God, then presumably you believe it's been written by people just like any other book.
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's funny, I've heard the opposite view from some Protestants: that you could only get to heaven if you were completely without sin, so most (or all) people would naturally be in hell, BUT if you completely surrender yourself to Jesus, he has died for your sins and so that 'cancels out' all your wrongdoings. By this line of reasoning, the true believers and only the true believers get into heaven, never mind what good things and bad things they have done in their lives.
Is it only Christians who go to Heaven? If so what happens to majority of people in the world who are not Christians?😕
Again a very difficult question.
God decides who can spend his eternal life in His presence. Only if somebody would choose totally and absolutely and for 100% and forever against God, that person goes to hell. That person has chos ...[text shortened]... reality of hell .... It is not a "symbol" or anything. It is an existing reality .......
[/b]
I'm not a Christian myself, but I find this 'scapegoat' model of justice (you do the crime, Jesus does the time so everything's fine) morally dubious to say the least.
23 Dec 03
So far I've only asked questions so I suppose I should declare myself.
I cannot contemplate the world on which we live, or look into the night sky and believe that it is all the result of some 'accident'. Neither however can I accept the traditional view of a God; so I guess I am trult an agnostic.
I do believe that religion tends to control believers by teaching acceptance of those things for which there are no answers; 'God moves in mysterious ways....' 'It is not given to us to know these things...' etc.
I am a little surprised that nobody has yet quoted Karl Marx 'Religion..... is the opium of the masses' , which I believe is spot on , and I am a very long way from being a Marxist.
I find this thread and the opinions expressed very interesting - thanks to everyone so far - oh and Happy Christmas!!!😀
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by Acolyte
It's funny, I've heard the opposite view from some Protestants: that you could only get to heaven if you were completely without sin, so most (or all) people would naturally be in hell, BUT if you completely surrender yourself to Jesus, he has died for your sins and so that 'cancels out' all your wrongdoings. By this line of reasoning, the true believer ...[text shortened]... (you do the crime, Jesus does the time so everything's fine) morally dubious to say the least.
You can find all kinds of hairraising and mindboggling interpretations of a lot of things written in the Bible among people who call themselves Christians or even among people who call themselves non-believers or agnostic or atheist. The interpretations of the Creationists of parts of the Book of Genesis are one good example of the former, Bbarrs claim about God being a "mass murderer" is a perfect example of the latter. If you want to know a reliable interpretation you'd better check out the Roman-Catholic point of view. It's consistent and reliable.
You write: "I'm not a Christian myself, but I find this 'scapegoat' model of justice (you do the crime, Jesus does the time so everything's fine) morally dubious to say the least.[/b]
Can you explain why you find this "morally dubious" ?
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by colleman
So far I've only asked questions so I suppose I should declare myself.
I cannot contemplate the world on which we live, or look into the night sky and believe that it is all the result of some 'accident'. Neither however can I accept the traditional view of a God; so I guess I am trult an agnostic.
I do believe that religion tends to control believers ...[text shortened]... he opinions expressed very interesting - thanks to everyone so far - oh and Happy Christmas!!!😀
"Religion ist Opium des Volkes" Karl Marx
Marx points at a way religion and also the Christian religion can be used by a group or a person in order to dream away from the bad world. This is not the way Christians should deal with their religion. Jezus aks us to take up our crosses, which means that we have to face difficulties, fears, worries and the pain of life if we encounter it. We must not turn away from it but face it. This is hardly a call for escapism .....
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by AcolyteYou write: " Are you claiming that, say, medieval European society was morally enlightened? (or at least compared to us) "
1. Are you claiming that, say, medieval European society was morally enlightened? (or at least compared to us)
2. Why is the Bible such a good moral guide? If you don't believe it's the word of God, then presumably you believe it's been written by people just like any other book.
Who is "us" ?
23 Dec 03
2 edits
Originally posted by ncrosbydon't worry NC. you're on rhp, so you're safe for a while 😀
I could be wrong, and if I am then that REALLY sucks for me...it's going to be a loooooong eternity! 😳 But there is no way that I am going to mold my life around something I don't know to be true.
thomas henry huxley, the creator of agnosticism, also refused to 'mold his life' around something he didn't know. after the death of his first son, noel, a bishop sent him an earnest letter of consolation which nevertheless had certain religious overtones designed to comfort huxley. huxley's reply rejected what his feelings craved:
"my convictions ... on all the matters of which you speak ... are firmly rooted. But the great blow [his son's death] which fell upon me seemed to stir them to their foundation and had I lived a couple of centuries earlier I could have fancied a devil scoffing at me ... and asking me what profit it was to have stripped myself of the hopes and consolations of the mass of mankind? To which my only reply was and is - O devil! Truth is better than much profit, I have searched over the grounds of my belief and if wife and child and name and fame were all lost to me one after the other as the penalty, still I would not lie."
huxley was a very strong 'believer' as you can see. many people of various religions (organized or otherwise) are also strong believers. this is probably a good thing, depending on what you believe 😉
in friendship,
prad
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeSorry, the 'us' refers to "our technologically adept, morally retarded society" in the previous post. Whether that is a meaningful concept is another matter.
You write: " Are you claiming that, say, medieval European society was morally enlightened? (or at least compared to us) "
Who is "us" ?
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeOK - suppose Person A kills Person B. However, Person C confesses to and is sent to jail for the murder. It is later discovered that Person A did it. When the police come round to arrest him, Person A says "I'm really grateful to Person C for being punished in my place." The police let Person A off, while Person C remains in jail (he did not appeal his conviction.)
You can find all kinds of hairraising and mindboggling interpretations of a lot of things written in the Bible among people who call themselves Christians or even among people who call themselves non-believers or agnostic or atheist. The interpretations of the Creationists of parts of the Book of Genesis are one good example of the former, Bbarrs claim a ...[text shortened]... y dubious to say the least.
Can you explain why you find this "morally dubious" ?
[/b]
Does this strike you as a scenario in which justice has been done?
I have a similar problem with 'original sin' (don't know if this is part of Catholic doctrine). Why are the descendants of Adam & Eve sinful, just because their ancestors sinned?
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by Acolyte"Does this strike you as a scenario in which justice has been done?" Acolyte
OK - suppose Person A kills Person B. However, Person C confesses to and is sent to jail for the murder. It is later discovered that Person A did it. When the police come round to arrest him, Person A says "I'm really grateful to Person C for being punished in my place." The police let Person A off, while Person C remains in jail (he did not appeal hi ...[text shortened]... c doctrine). Why are the descendants of Adam & Eve sinful, just because their ancestors sinned?
No, not at all.
The fact is that God sacrificed Himself for human kind out of love. Everybody knows God is innocent. Everybody knows or should know that we humans mess things up, not God. We deserve the punishment, death, but we humans cannot repair the damage that has been done. So God did this by dying on the cross and showing to us his dominance over death by rising from the dead. Death has been defeated by God. We human beings cannot do so. So Justice has been done in the way Love would have wanted it to be done, it's not the way of revenge. God is Love, not revenge. God does not want to punish us, he wants us to be happy .... The "only" thing we have to do is accept Him as our God and Saviour and accept His Sacrifice to the Father ....
23 Dec 03
1 edit
Originally posted by Acolyte"I have a similar problem with 'original sin' (don't know if this is part of Catholic doctrine). Why are the descendants of Adam & Eve sinful, just because their ancestors sinned?[/b]
OK - suppose Person A kills Person B. However, Person C confesses to and is sent to jail for the murder. It is later discovered that Person A did it. When the police come round to arrest him, Person A says "I'm really grateful to Perso ...[text shortened]... endants of Adam & Eve sinful, just because their ancestors sinned?
Original sin is also a Catholic concept. Of course a new born child is not sinful in the way adults can be sinful. I was told to understand the concept of original sin in the following way. When a human being is born he has a debt towards God to help and build, to repair, the Kingdom of God.The newborn has an obligation towards God to repair the broken world, to repair the damage done in the past.
This debt is called original sin. The debt is paid by Jezus on the Cross so we can be free of this original sin when we are baptised, however that does not mean that we no longer have to serve God, on the contrary ....
23 Dec 03
Originally posted by pradtf"Truth is better than much profit, I have searched over the grounds of my belief and if wife and child and name and fame were all lost to me one after the other as the penalty, still I would not lie."
don't worry NC. you're on rhp, so you're safe for a while 😀
thomas henry huxley, the creator of agnosticism, also refused to 'mold his life' around something he didn't know. after the death of his first son, noel, a bishop sent him an earnest letter of consolation which nevertheless had certain religious overtones designed to comfort huxley. huxley ...[text shortened]... evers. this is probably a good thing, depending on what you believe 😉
in friendship,
prad
Jezus said, I'm the Way, the Truth and Life.
So I guess this agnost is on the right track when he believes in the truth. That leaves the Way and Life itself.
🙂