Religion and the greatest story ever told..

[Helios]

Actually, most Chrisitians don't think "God" is an old Man with a grey beard sitting in the clouds. That's just how he was depicted by some. In the Bible, he appears in many guises, but only in the very beginning does it reference his image (by stating he created Adam in his own image).

"God" is a label given by man. By whatever name you choose, if such a life force existed, then I would say having the power to create life trumps your shooting the pigs.

Ok. We can clone pigs. We can kill pigs. Thus we have the power to create and destroy pig life. Are we gods to pigs? No, of course not, that's totally illogical. I don't deny the POSSIBILITY of a incomprehensible lifeform floating around somewhere in the universe, but how is this the most rational explanation for creation? Yes, in the beginning there was nothing. Not even a single particle of matter or energy. In order for "god" to create the universe, he would have to exist. How does something exist in nothingness? Does "god" surpass all measurable reality? If so, doesn't that seem rather convenient for believers? Scientists have been beaten over the head with "you cant prove there's no god" for as long as scientists have been around. The real issue is never addressed. You cant PROVE he exists either, so how is assuming something completely illogical the FIRST assumption? You might as well assume that there is a huge ball of cotton candy in the center of the universe, and it has magical powers. It can create galaxies and everything was created by it.

 

[jillian]

Actually, most Chrisitians don't think "God" is an old Man with a grey beard sitting in the clouds. That's just how he was depicted by some. In the Bible, he appears in many guises, but only in the very beginning does it reference his image (by stating he created Adam in his own image).

"God" is a label given by man. By whatever name you choose, if such a life force existed, then I would say having the power to create life trumps your shooting the pigs.

Some Kabbalists have a different view of what creating man in G-d's image means. If the Hebrew letters for G-d's name are put one over the other, they take on the shape of a person.

 

[Shogun]

Your wrong. All is given from God. God is sovereign. Be careful for what you say, for all will stand before God in judgement of everything we said or did. Mocking God in any way can bring His wraith down upon you. Man's wisdom is foolishness to God. Humble yourself. Be quick to listen and slow to speak.

Your god is a flaming tranvestite that cried the mascara off of it's face after being rejected fr the part of Dr. Frankenfurter. Thanks for your dime store evangelical advice but I take my reality with a strong shot of science instead of voodoo hocus pocus superstition. Ever wonder why the unforgivable sin is denial and not MURDER? Kinda hard to sell amway when you deny that it is the best offer around, isn't it?

Please, email your god and tell him to bring his wrath and pick up a pack of smokes for me on his way here. If this were 1885 you'd be throwing salt over your shoulder.

 

[Shogun]

You've tried that route. When you can whip out some REAL evidence instead of theory you claim is evidence, let me know. Until then, your "fairy tale" is no better than mine.

Oh, you mean like the REAL evidence that the rest of the scientific community can fathom regardless of your opinion on valid physical evidence?

Indeed, feel free to email Nasa and tell them how wrong their physical observations are. While you are at it maybe you can offer them YOUR physical evidence of a god for the same consideration.


It's things like this that seperate ID from Science, dude. You can accept or reject it but science will ALWAYS kick religion in the balls. The only midigating factor is how long it takes thumpers to accept that, in fact, the earth is not flat.

 

[Shogun]

There is only one unforgiveable sin, and a minor indiscretion against Man it is not.

How many blasphemous statements does it take to prompt this silly bastard of a god into throwing a lightening bolt my way anyway!?!

 

[Shogun]

That's your choice. I come to different conclusion. IMO, a Creator is far more logical than an unscientific "scientific" theory.

Let me ask you this .... do you think Man on Earth is the only life in the universe, and/or the omly or most intelligent life?

oh, you mean UNSIENTIFIC in it's physical observation or in your refusal to accept heliocentrism?


I guess, to some, a golden chariot dragging the sun accross the sky was a lot more logical than astrophyisics too.

 

[Shogun]

But all that "God" REALLY has to be is a life form beyond Man's capablity to comprehend, who is described BY Man within his ability to comprehend at the time.

Just a hypothetical, but STILL more logical than something being created from nothing.

Oh, you mean CREATED FROM NOTHING like the supposed intellegent designer that we are all supposed to assume was always here? So, what was before the ALPHA in the whole "alpha and omega" schtick, dude? WHO CREATED YOUR GOD since your litmus test is who can't explain the pre-big bang. The entire fricking premise of biblical creation REVOLVES (hehehehe) around the concept of a god, appearing from out of no where, *poof* magically creating the earth from NOTHING. Yet, there you are waving that question around like a flail despite the hilarity of its application to what you seem to think is more logical.


Go buy a telescope.

 

[Steerpike]

How many blasphemous statements does it take to prompt this silly bastard of a god into throwing a lightening bolt my way anyway!?!

If God exists and plays an active role in the world, he's a sadistic bastard. Let's see what Ivan has to say about it in the chapter of The Brothers Karamazo entitled "Rebellion" - he starts by telling his brother Alyosha, a monk, about a child:

This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'!
...
I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: 'Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.' When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can't accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child's torturer, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don't want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."

The book is well worth reading, btw

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Some Kabbalists have a different view of what creating man in G-d's image means. If the Hebrew letters for G-d's name are put one over the other, they take on the shape of a person.

Not all Christians agree that "in God's image" means that God looks like a human also.

 

[jillian]

Not all Christians agree that "in God's image" means that God looks like a human also.

I didn't know that. But I am interested. Care to elaborate?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I didn't know that. But I am interested. Care to elaborate?

I am just saying the term does not have to mean that man is the same form as God. In fact it makes sense he is not. The term " In God's Image" does not mean literally as God looks. Just as the " Jesus is God's only begotten son" doesn't mean that God "birthed" Jesus in any manner.

The two specific groups of Christians I know that do not insist God and man are identical would be Jehoviah Witnesses and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am sure there are others. The term does not have to mean Man looks just like God.

Now the intolerant, religious and non religious will be along to tell you how those two groups are whack jobs. Or cults. Never mind both have been around for over 100 years and are mainstream sects of Christians. Both have MILLIONS of followers and neither have a cult personality. Neither instruct nor require nor believe that you should worship any one but God. In fact both would kick a member out if they did worship some person other than God.

I do not know all the Protestant sects so can't tell you how each of them view the statement " Made in God's image" But I suspect there are in fact others that do not think God looks like man in his "natural" form.

 

[Helios]

I am just saying the term does not have to mean that man is the same form as God. In fact it makes sense he is not. The term " In God's Image" does not mean literally as God looks. Just as the " Jesus is God's only begotten son" doesn't mean that God "birthed" Jesus in any manner.

Here RGS is still thinking rationally.

The two specific groups of Christians I know that do not insist God and man are identical would be Jehoviah Witnesses and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am sure there are others. The term does not have to mean Man looks just like God.

Oh no, he's slipping.

Now the intolerant, religious and non religious will be along to tell you how those two groups are whack jobs. Or cults. Never mind both have been around for over 100 years and are mainstream sects of Christians. Both have MILLIONS of followers and neither have a cult personality. Neither instruct nor require nor believe that you should worship any one but God. In fact both would kick a member out if they did worship some person other than God.

And here comes the bullshit! What took so long. Just get right into it next time. How long a cult/sect has been around has nothing to do with its validity. How many followers a cult/sect has has no bearing on its validity. But just keep throwing those snakes and telling yourself you'll be saved. Jehovah Witnesses are insane man, they only marry within their cult, only do business within their cult, only associate with members of their cult... and if you do anything to piss them off, they will excommunicate your ass so quick you'll be living in a box behind the church within the hour. BESIDES, we aren't talking about sects and cults, we are talking about Christianity. And it is true, that while there are exceptions, the vast majority of Xns have the invisible bearded man image when they think of "god."

I do not know all the Protestant sects so can't tell you how each of them view the statement " Made in God's image" But I suspect there are in fact others that do not think God looks like man in his "natural" form.

Does it really matter how people perceive "god" in the physical sense? He could be a glow in the dark octopus, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Let me ask you this: If you have been brought up in an environment where religion was never mentioned, and there were no references to any divine being, do you think you would have "found god" all by yourself? Or is religion merely a cultural phenomenon, passed down through the generations, corrupting young mind after young mind with ridiculous rhetoric and dogma?

Think about it this way: "What do powerful people have to gain from a religious population?" I really recommend you ask yourself that question till you get a halfway intelligent answer.

 

[jillian]

I am just saying the term does not have to mean that man is the same form as God. In fact it makes sense he is not. The term " In God's Image" does not mean literally as God looks. Just as the " Jesus is God's only begotten son" doesn't mean that God "birthed" Jesus in any manner.

Then where do you think those fallacies come from? I would think it would be from misunderstanding.

The two specific groups of Christians I know that do not insist God and man are identical would be Jehoviah Witnesses and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am sure there are others. The term does not have to mean Man looks just like God.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Now the intolerant, religious and non religious will be along to tell you how those two groups are whack jobs. Or cults. Never mind both have been around for over 100 years and are mainstream sects of Christians. Both have MILLIONS of followers and neither have a cult personality. Neither instruct nor require nor believe that you should worship any one but God. In fact both would kick a member out if they did worship some person other than God.

See... I think you'd be right when it comes to some of the uber-religious evangelical types. But they're the same people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Mitt Romney even though he'd probably be the best fiscal manager the republicans have to offer in the upcoming election at a time when the economy is going to be an issue. Non-religious types are much less likely to bother distinguishing among religious sects since one religion would pretty much be the same as any other to someone who holds no religious beliefs.

I do not know all the Protestant sects so can't tell you how each of them view the statement " Made in God's image" But I suspect there are in fact others that do not think God looks like man in his "natural" form.

Thanks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

People do in fact become believers with out ever having been taught as children to believe. Happens every day all around the world.

 

[mattskramer]

People do in fact become believers with out ever having been taught as children to believe. Happens every day all around the world.

Would you expand on that? If they are not told as children then they are told as adults. At some point, one must be informed about God, Jesus, Heaven, etc.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Would you expand on that? If they are not told as children then they are told as adults. At some point, one must be informed about God, Jesus, Heaven, etc.

Read what I said. I responded to the claim above that only us poor brainwashed from birth are dumb enough to be mislead by a fake God or Gods. That claim is simply false, as I said, people that were never taught as children about God do in fact become religious all around the world. Most if not all religions gain new followers all the time or they die out, and not all those new followers are the children of followers.

 

[Diuretic]

Have you ever wondered why other animals don't have gods?

 

[Taomon]

Read what I said. I responded to the claim above that only us poor brainwashed from birth are dumb enough to be mislead by a fake God or Gods. That claim is simply false, as I said, people that were never taught as children about God do in fact become religious all around the world. Most if not all religions gain new followers all the time or they die out, and not all those new followers are the children of followers.

I have to side with RGS on this one. One does not need to be brainwashed from birth, or brainwashed at all, to believe in the divine.

A false God to you is the one true God to another. We are spiritual beings. It is a basic human necessity to have some level of faith. I have known avowed atheists who have found God through life-altering events (near death experience, meditation, etc). I have known deeply religious people to lose faith in their religion, and some who lose faith in God.

This is all individualistic according to level of spirituality, circumstances of life and state of mind. There is no way to generalize on this.

 

[Taomon]

Would you expand on that? If they are not told as children then they are told as adults. At some point, one must be informed about God, Jesus, Heaven, etc.

Some people are born with a deeper spiritual understanding. This feeds into the claim by Buddhists and Hindus that we are bound to the wheel of Samsara (birth, death, rebirth) until our soul reaches spiritual enlightenment (nirvana) and breaks free of Samsara. At that point one can become one with God or stay behind and become a Bodhisattva.

I was born with a more profound understanding of God than my brother. There are people who are deeper spiritually than I. We are all on different levels. The people who are more enlightened do not need to be taught about God in order to understand that God exists.

 

[mattskramer]

Read what I said. I responded to the claim above that only us poor brainwashed from birth are dumb enough to be mislead by a fake God or Gods. That claim is simply false, as I said, people that were never taught as children about God do in fact become religious all around the world. Most if not all religions gain new followers all the time or they die out, and not all those new followers are the children of followers.

Fair enough. Some adults that are informed of Christianity become Christians. Some adults, when informed of Atheism become Atheists. Some children raised on Christianity or informed of Christianity become Christians. Some Children raised on Atheism or informed of Atheism become Atheists.