Can we be saved?

Originally posted by whodey
According to the Atheist Alliance in their recent conference in Virginia, religion must be destroyed.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071003a.html

The conference was headed up by Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris, and journalist Christopher Hitchens. Although most attendees were adamant that God was a myth, the ...[text shortened]... no? We all have a better way to make the world a better place in our collective minds.

That website appears to be run by L. Brent Bozell and co. Hardly a trustworthy source. Bozell is a religious zealot with a long history of trying to force \'family values\' on the entertainment industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That website appears to be run by L. Brent Bozell and co. Hardly a trustworthy source. Bozell is a religious zealot with a long history of trying to force \'family values\' on the entertainment industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell

How exactly can Mr. Bozell "force" anybody to do anything? Did he break into the office of the president of Paramount Studios and point a gun to the president's head and tell him to clean up Hollywood or his head will get blown off? Please explain.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That website appears to be run by L. Brent Bozell and co. Hardly a trustworthy source. Bozell is a religious zealot with a long history of trying to force \'family values\' on the entertainment industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell

I don't think that Dawkins positions are in question here. After all, many of us here are familiar with similar positions in books he has written. Are you disputing these positions?

When it comes down to it, no news source is 100% reliable. All sources have a bias to them because none of us are 100% reliable nor are we 100% objective. Granted, there are some news sources that attempt to purposfully skew the facts in their favor and therefore are less reliable than other sources who do not mean to do so. Is this what you are saying they are doing? If so, how are they skewing the facts?

Originally posted by serigado
Of course they were. Was it not for the fear of religion and people wouldn't behave. Even with religion there was so much chaos...
Even now religion is useful to control the masses of unintelligent people. It's purpose is unite and lead the sheeps to some common goal. Some can perfectly see this. Look at them getting rich.

But you are implying that religion is necessary to control the "unintelligent" masses. Is this the case? Would those attempting to control the masses essentially be rendered incapable of doing so if the tool of religion was stripped form them?

Originally posted by serigado
Religion wasn't created for a sick purpose. The intentions were great. To provide an answer to a lot of stuff. To provide a moral code of conduct. To unite people under the same flag.
When some saw the power of religion , they started to get advantage of it. Now, it's sick.
I'm not saying religion is the source of all bad things. Not even close. Even with ...[text shortened]... purposes will appear. It's part of human nature. Religion was born as part of human nature.

So you are now sitting in judgement over all who claim to be religious? Are there not "good" people who are religious who are doing "good" things? Are there not outreaches for the poor in the name of God and are there not loving people who do loving things who are religious? Are you saying that you have not come into contact with such people?

You say the religion was born out of human nature, no? Then it is really human nature that is on trial, is it not? In fact, that is what my religion suggests. We all have a "fallen" nature. Therefore, why is Dawkins calling my religion the problem when in fact my religioin is one of the few outlets for addressing the heart of the issue?

Originally posted by serigado
[b]Religion was good moral code 2k yrs ago. Now times have changed. DO you hear the stupid things the pope says?? That priest preach? It's unbelievable.

What "stupid" things are you referring to?

Originally posted by serigado
Even if there was a god and he showed to me, I would have my opinion. And I would say to him:"I think it should be this way". Then we could have an argument, and he could try to convince me otherwise. But NO ONE tells me one certain thing IS THIS WAY, because it must be so. Sheeps and dogs do that. I have an intelligence.

The police is always around. It's o ...[text shortened]... aw and conduct. Or is your religion better and you wouldn't fall in the same errors of them?[/b]

But logically if there was an all seeing and all knowing God, would this God's opinion not conflict with your own at some point since you are not all seeing and all knowing as he is? For example, in comparison to a child, you have insight that they cannot logically deduce on their own yet it is logical to you even though it is not to them. In effect, they rely on you to show them the "right path". Really, if there is an all knowing God then faith is the only possible means for interaction with beings such as us who are not all knowing and all seeing. At times we will see the logic but at other times we will not see it.

An example would be Christ's commandment to love your enemies and do good to them that mean you harm. On the surface, such a command seems daft. Where is the logic? Yet there is a method to the madness is there not? We see people rendering evil for evil all over the globe and where does it get them? Really, the circle of hate must be broken at some point or it will be never ending.

Originally posted by whodey
But you are implying that religion is necessary to control the "unintelligent" masses. Is this the case? Would those attempting to control the masses essentially be rendered incapable of doing so if the tool of religion was stripped form them?

There are other ways, but religion worked very well for a long time (I'm talking mostly of society centuries ago, and some underdeveloped countries). But this topic is irrelevant for this thread, I think.

Originally posted by whodey
So you are now sitting in judgement over all who claim to be religious? Are there not "good" people who are religious who are doing "good" things? Are there not outreaches for the poor in the name of God and are there not loving people who do loving things who are religious? Are you saying that you have not come into contact with such people?

You say th when in fact my religioin is one of the few outlets for addressing the heart of the issue?

There are many good religious people who help people to a huge degree due to their beliefs. I'm not saying everything is negative about religion.
But they are doing it for the wrong reason, that's the point.

I don't care about Dawkins or what he says. You are making his position the position of all people who don't support your God. It is not. Religion is too about the nature of men and his heart.
Take the God e misconcepts out of religion and you will have a philosophy, and that's very healthy.
Religion having some good points and addressing some good issues is not enough. Everything has it's good and bad points. One has to measure both and look at the possible alternatives.

Originally posted by whodey
What "stupid" things are you referring to?

Do you believe marriage is for life, sex only after marriage, condoms shouldn't be used, etc?

Originally posted by whodey
But logically if there was an all seeing and all knowing God, would this God's opinion not conflict with your own at some point since you are not all seeing and all knowing as he is? For example, in comparison to a child, you have insight that they cannot logically deduce on their own yet it is logical to you even though it is not to them. In effect, they r ...[text shortened]... t them? Really, the circle of hate must be broken at some point or it will be never ending.

Then God would have to teach me and do some arguments for me to change my opinion. I'm open minded and ready to be convinced by arguments of anything.
About loving enemies, it always made sense to me. It's like saying "be tolerant, don't get into conflicts". Strangely, the church didn't quite promote it for centuries.

Originally posted by whodey
As for the Christian point of view, the main focus is the heart of mankind. What makes you tick? Who or what do you love the most? Who is using which tools and why? I don't really see science delving into such issues, therefore, the question then must be asked, how then can it save us? After all, it is merely a tool and does not delve into the hearts of men who are using such tools. That is what is at the "heart" of the matter.[/b]

Just to show how my faith adresses the issue of the "heart" here are a few scriptures for your entertainment.

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperatly wicked; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Ezekiel 11:19 "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh."

Matthew 12:34 "O generation of vipers, how can you being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. A good man out of the treasure of the heart brings forth good things; and an evil man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth evil things."

Matthew 15:18 "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies."

Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.....and they went and told it to the residue; neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared to the 11 as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."

Luke 8:15 "But the seed that fell on good ground are they which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience."

Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing assunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

As one can see, great emphasis is placed on the "heart" of mankind and with good reason. I say that knowledge is power which includes scientific knowledge. Therefore, who are we empowering with such knowledge? If they have a "good" heart they will be empowered to do good things but if they have an "evil" heart, they will be empowerd to use such knowledge for our ill. However, science does not address the issue of the heart, however, religion does. Which field of study then goes to the heart of the problems within society? Which is needed the most?

Originally posted by serigado
There are other ways, but religion worked very well for a long time (I'm talking mostly of society centuries ago, and some underdeveloped countries). But this topic is irrelevant for this thread, I think.

I think this topic is most relavent for this thread. This is because Dawkins is implying that religion is the enemy. Therefore, he is implying that the absence of such an enemy would result in a type of utopia. You rightly point out that there are other ways to control people within society and if religion did not exist then they would use those tools available to them. Really, religion is not the issue, rather, the issue is what makes men try to contol us?

Originally posted by serigado
Then God would have to teach me and do some arguments for me to change my opinion. I'm open minded and ready to be convinced by arguments of anything.
About loving enemies, it always made sense to me. It's like saying "be tolerant, don't get into conflicts". Strangely, the church didn't quite promote it for centuries.

As far as God making sense, I will talk about the previous post of yours asking about marriage and sex and condoms etc, etc. The Bible outlines what is acceptable sexual behavoir which is sex within the confines of marriage. You may argue that marriage is not needed but I would say think of the implications of a sexual union. What are the implications? Is it not possibly bringing a life into the world? Is it not possible spreading a life ending disease if one is promiscuous? Both of these apply whether you are using condoms or not using condoms even though not using condoms increases such concerns. The implications of a sexual union are serious in large measure and I don't think they should be taken lightly because life and death hangs in the balance.

What if everyone decided to live by the Biblical model of having a sexual union only within the confines of marriage? Would we have AIDS today as such a problem if at all? Would we have an epidemic of single parent households and the implications of poverty associated with them? Granted, our problems would not disappear, however, perhaps our world would be a little better place to live in if we lived this way.

I know that one of the main beefs with the Catholic church's ban on condoms is that the banning of such devices increases the likelyhood of STD's and unwanted pregnancies. However, if we walked by the law of the Bible then we would not be having sexual unions outside the confines of marriage, thus, such concerns are of much less significance. Therefore, if you are not going to heed the church's warnings about not having sex outside of marriage then by all means do not heed the warnings of using condoms!!!

Edit: Just so you know I am not Catholic. Also, the Bible does not directly address the issue of contraceptives that I am aware of, rather, this is an interpretation from the Catholic church. However, what if it did? Must we understand why? Did Adam and Eve understand why they should not partake of the fruit of good and evil, for example? Would they ever have understood why unless they partook of the fruit? Are you one of the ones who would insist on finding out the hard way?

Originally posted by serigado
Strangely, the church didn't quite promote it for centuries.[/b]

I would like to expound on this statement. I would agree that the church is not sinless. In fact, look at the time of Christ. He went around calling out many of the church leaders by declaring them hypocrites and such. In fact, it seems that the religious leaders were the only source of contention for him in large part. However, he did not come to destroy the temple/church that held such corrupt leaders did he? In fact, he drove out the money changers within the temple as well trying to expose some of the corrupt religious leaders within the temple. He was merely trying to purify the place of worship for a holy God. I would contend that this is happening today. God contninues to "purify" the church be helping to expose such hypocrisy as we see in church scandels today. Also, not all of the religious leaders were like this. Many, in fact, seemed to have had "good hearts" such as Nicodemus.