Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Not that I put too much stock in biblical texts, but I think you're reading it wrong. The statement is that, should you be persecuted for following Jesus and still remain loyal to him, it'll work out well for you in the the end.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Pretty rudimentary, here - you are blessed for being persecuted. If it's unclear what the problem is with that is, here it is: it makes being persecuted a good thing.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Once again, I believe this is a misinterpretation (and a complete disregard for everything SpacePope said). The verses in question appear to be more about avoiding gluttony and vanity than about worrying about not actually having food, water, or clothes at all. For instance, "Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?" suggests that being content with having what you need is better than desiring more that you don't need.

So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'

I really don't see what's up to interpretation here. Do not worry about what you will eat, drink or wear.

EDIT: By the way, meant to add this to my last post but my internet crapped out for a little while - SpacePope, I notice that you didn't respond to my point about it promoting the idea of thought crimes.

[MasterOfMagic]

but because I think there is some divine purpose behind everything that happens, good or bad, and that I would end up in hell if I did go through with it, I abstain from the idea. [...] This isn't really meant as an argument so much as a reason why I believe.

Honestly, if you believe in heaven and hell, by all means, shoot for heaven. But, ignoring their existence entirely, be certain to reach for all the enjoyment you can get out of this life as well. If something is causing you to literally want to kill yourself, get away from it or change it. It might take awhile to do, it might be more difficult than offing yourself, but do it anyway. Because, really, you're doing the same thing by killing yourself. You're just removing all the future experiences you could have had, and causing more pain to those around you who care about you at the same time. That's the only difference.

Time heals all things. I'm not saying you'll completely forget about it, but you will move on if you let yourself.

[BitVyper]

The same way the ancient peoples did it. Drug the hell out of you with hallucinogens and you'd see God eventually.
I'm quite sure.

Some cultures don't even need the drugs to trance. Dervishes just spin until they wig out.

[TheSpacePope]

What definition of "make it better" doesn't include changing it?

"until everything is accomplished"
It was jesus' mission to make our lives better.
The last part of the line that you left out.

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother without cause
2. Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt

That makes absolutely no reference to thought crime.
He did literal slander.
This quote is out of context, it is a part of a grater parable telling us not to murder your brother(fellow man) Or slander him, but to let justice be swift.

here is the quote IN context

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.[d

So the first part is about murder and slander, the second is about reconciling when you have wronged someone, and the third is about paying your dues when you owe them. Again, I fail to see the reference to thoughtcrime, rather, just regular old crime.
You don't even know what you are talking about. It's like arguing with a brick wall. You aren't even listening to what I am trying to say.

Pretty rudimentary, here - you are blessed for being persecuted. If it's unclear what the problem is with that is, here it is: it makes being persecuted a good thing.

Pretty rudimentary here. Point out in the passage where it says that being persecuted is good, not you are good for taking the persecution in stride. It does not say that persecution is good. Not. at. all.
here it is again

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

It says blessed are you, not the persecution.
Again this is tantamount (which means equal to, if you were having trouble with that) to the "Sticks and stones" Jesus, it's called subtext.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

What SpacePope said, basically. You can't objectively argue that the feeling is the existence of a deity because the feeling itself is a subjective experience, much like trying to objectively prove that a hamburger is delicious because you can only say that it is from your own subjective experience.

But hamburgers are delicious, and I believe this with every fiber of my being.

I'm just not seeing the analogy as lining up with Zak's post, as the former describes feelings determining subjective sensory experience such as taste, whereas the latter describes feelings describing objective phenomena such as God.

It seems like the more direct analogy would be "I really like hamburgers, therefore hamburgers exist." Which I mean they do but in any case that's the essential relationship (more or less).

I never suggested I was talking about you, Mr. Vanitypants.

Prove that you weren't.

YOU CAN'T SO THERE.

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

I didn't really want to say this, because the last time I introduced personal problems into a thread it got closed. But, if I didn't believe that a God existed or that I had a purpose being here, I honestly would have committed suicide by now. I've had plenty of reason and all the opportunity in the world to do it, but because I think there is some divine purpose behind everything that happens, good or bad, and that I would end up in hell if I did go through with it, I abstain from the idea. If I am deluding myself, fine, but I owe my life to that delusion.

This isn't really meant as an argument so much as a reason why I believe.

Honestly, I'm prepared to call that fair.

[Elminster_Amaur]

I'd say it's probably because a feeling is based on something internal, whereas a god would be external (to the whole universe, really). How could you possibly draw a conclusion about something external based on a sensation that in no way involves external factors?

Given, I'm making some assumptions here that could totally be wrong. It might help if somebody could be less than completely fucking vague to the point of almost saying nothing of meaning at all about this whole "I feel God" deal.

The way I read it, the bolded statement is both correct and incorrect, but its incorrectness outweighs the correctness.

That God could be external to anything and still be all things is wrong. It would be more apt to say that a large portion of God is not a part of this Universe. However, in every religious tradition I've ever read, the true Creator (not the Father, but the Holy Spirit for you Christies) is all things and nothing. He is all things because nothing can live without Him(It? We?), nothing can be alive. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it. This is also why he cannot fully manifest on any plane of existence: to do so would remove the life from everything else in existence, especially beings in the same plane. That is why He(It? We?) sends Avatars to lead people to reunite with Him, if they so choose.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I'm just not seeing the analogy as lining up with Zak's post, as the former describes feelings determining subjective sensory experience such as taste, whereas the latter describes feelings describing objective phenomena such as God.

It seems like the more direct analogy would be "I really like hamburgers, therefore hamburgers exist." Which I mean they do but in any case that's the essential relationship (more or less).

Well, I suppose it's more an assertion in the belief of the existence of the deliciousness of hamburgers, which I feel is simply more than an overwhelming desire of mine for the hamburger to taste good.

Prove that you weren't.

YOU CAN'T SO THERE.

I SUBSCRIBE TO A FUNDAMENTALIST INTERPRETATION OF MY OWN POSTS.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

That makes absolutely no reference to thought crime.
He did literal slander.

Calling someone a moron is slander now? Where I come from it's just insulting them. Are you advocating a philosophy where insulting someone is a sin worthy of the fires of hell?

Pretty rudimentary here. Point out in the passage where it says that being persecuted is good, not you are good for taking the persecution in stride. It does not say that persecution is good. Not. at. all.
here it is again
It says blessed are you, not the persecution.

And? That's what I said too. It makes being persecuted a good thing.

Again this is tantamount (which means equal to, if you were having trouble with that)

Real mature.

to the "Sticks and stones" Jesus, it's called subtext.

Strange how sticks and stones Jesus, as you call him, also punishes people for words.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

On the subject of feelings, since I was kind of the one that brought it up, I have to say it doesn't HAVE to be actual proof or evidence in the real world.

On a note, all of the 'you' in this post are all general and not intended to be at any specific person.

Going back to my color blind analogy, I'll go into a bit more depth. I'm also going to hope nobody here watches chick-flicks therefore will not note a movie which contains a similar analogy.

Imagine we were all color blind. We saw only black and white and shades of grey in between. We knew there was wavelengths and a spectrum, but we could not perceive color. Then one day you see the color red. And then blue. And then green. You try to explain to your friend that there are all these vibrant colors in the world, but as he doesn't perceive them, he has no reason to believe you. You know you aren't insane, and you know the world is a much more beautiful place when color is added and you want your friend to experience this color. You think it would make him happier, so you keep trying to show him.

Eventually he gets annoyed with you and says how you can't prove any of this. You have no evidence other than your perception, which unfortunately can't be shared with anyone else. And he's right... its not evidence to him. You can't prove it to him. But do YOU need proof to know that color is there? No. You can literally sense it. You can't rationalize it or reason it out, after all you're only going by what your senses are telling you. But for you, thats really all you need in order to believe that yes, grass is totally green.

Belief in God is kind of like that. No we can't prove it or rationalize it in anyway, but we perceive it. And our perception is enough for our own belief, even if its unable to convince others. In our heads it makes total sense. The same way its most logical for the color-blind world to believe there is no color, it may be most logical for you to believe there is no God (heck, there's no physical evidence at all, right?)... but how can I deny my feelings? Simply because it makes sense to you, the world without God doesn't make that much sense to me.

Since we know different things, our lives are completely seperate and I won't even go into the difference in the thoughts of two people we arrive at different conclusions. But can you honestly say that if you had lived my life, that you wouldn't believe in God? I can't say for sure I would if I lived yours.

Then we get people like Richard Dawkins who says that if he had his way, any belief in God would be banned/made illegal. I realize there have been many evil theists throughout the years, but that could be said of any group, including atheists. For the most part, Christians are good people. For the most part, so are atheists. Are we really that different? Has history shown ANYTHING good coming from forcing a certain belief on somebody? Trying to convince in loving, caring way is one thing... but forcing it is something else. Calling people with a different belief than you 'stupid' or 'idiotic' or any of those other things Dawkins, and people even on this forum, have said about Christians is unfair, arrogant, and just plain wrong. The same way you can't lump atheists together, you can't lump Christians together. Look at Bob, for instance. Can you honestly say that he's a worse person due to his faith in God? I think its easier to say he's a better person.

Is it any more right to condemn Christian as an illogical fool for what he believes anymore than its right for the Christian to treat you as a godless pagan for your beliefs? I think no.

For the most part, the only reason Christians try to spread their belief is because, like the person who sees color, they think that other people's lives will be enriched and happier as a whole with God than without. The whole 'not going to hell' contributes too. We see countless people who've had their lives bettered due to belief in God (yes, it happens ALL the time). In fact, people that become worse people after becoming religious is incredibly rare. It might seem totally illogical to you. But that IS you, and you can't apply your own experience and thought processes to everybody else.

So in the end, some people NEED a belief in God to be happy. Some people don't. We'll find out when we die who was right and who was wrong, but I would hesitate to criticize someone else for having a belief I considered 'illogical', because in all honesty I have no idea what experiences the person has to bring them to their belief.

[TheSpacePope]

Calling someone a moron is slander now? Where I come from it's just insulting them. Are you advocating a philosophy where insulting someone is a sin worthy of the fires of hell?

That is not what the quote says and you know it. And It also says that you will be judged, and it never says that you do go to hell, it's a warning. Simple enough eh?

And? That's what I said too. It makes being persecuted a good thing.

Again, That is not what I said, and you are being a real pain in the ass about this, IT DOES NOT SAY THAT PERSECUTION IS A GOOD THING. EVER. NOT ONCE. GET IT. This is the last time that I will try and make you actually read the passage that you are trying to skew. If you have anything else to say about it, feel free not to.

Quote:
Again this is tantamount (which means equal to, if you were having trouble with that)

Real mature.
Quote:
to the "Sticks and stones" Jesus, it's called subtext.

Strange how sticks and stones Jesus, as you call him, also punishes people for words.

Where does it say that in the bible.....actually no...Do not anser any of the questions that I have previously typed. -
As a matter of fact, as far as I am concerned, to the degree of how you discuss this matter, all responses to you will now be cut off.

Hey everybody, I don't think that serenity exists. I can't see the posts, so they arent there right?
Prove me right/wrong. Whichever.