|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are atheists more likely to be fellons?
Having no solid anchor for morality it seems they're more likely be violate laws that conflict with their 'personal morality'
| gonzo wrote: |
| Having no solid anchor for morality it seems they're more likely be violate laws that conflict with their 'personal morality' |
God has nothing to do with morality. There is a God to forgive sins of those, who is believer. So, believers are most likely to be sinners.
Never really thought about it that way, but I guess you do have a point. If a person has no moral center or values, and having religion doesn't garuantee having them either, then I think they would be more inclined to break the law.
On the other hand, many "Religious" people have done some pretty nasty crimes all thru history. Some of the worst have bee done in the name of Christ.
I don't actually know if believing in God or not will keep anyone from commiting a crime if they are in mind to do it, but it may make them pause to think and therefore not act spontaneously. If more people took time to think of thier actions before commiting them, I think there would be less crime in general.
I think I would have to say "probobly".
On the other hand, many "Religious" people have done some pretty nasty crimes all thru history. Some of the worst have bee done in the name of Christ.
I don't actually know if believing in God or not will keep anyone from commiting a crime if they are in mind to do it, but it may make them pause to think and therefore not act spontaneously. If more people took time to think of thier actions before commiting them, I think there would be less crime in general.
I think I would have to say "probobly".
It depends it actually does show here in the UK that muslims tend to be more law abiding (To the stricter of laws) becuase of the strictness on which they were brought up, though COE Chrisitans don't have that strict upbringing.
I would have to say no. I mean look at the Mafia. Those folks are always stereotypically going to church.
On the one hand, we have religious people who tend to think that theire religions' rules are always correct, and try to abide by these rules. Most religions preach empathy, love and other values socially accepted as being "good"...
On the other hand, you have religious fanatics who kill and slur and sledge and racially discriminate based on religion and the idea that their religion is superior...
Hmmm... atheists don't believe in God. That doesn't make them inhuman and it doesn't mean they are immoral or don't have an idea of what is right and what is wrong. Felonies are commited by people irrespective of whether they're atheists or not. To say that someone is more likely to commit a felony if he's an atheist is ... not smart.
On the other hand, you have religious fanatics who kill and slur and sledge and racially discriminate based on religion and the idea that their religion is superior...
Hmmm... atheists don't believe in God. That doesn't make them inhuman and it doesn't mean they are immoral or don't have an idea of what is right and what is wrong. Felonies are commited by people irrespective of whether they're atheists or not. To say that someone is more likely to commit a felony if he's an atheist is ... not smart.
Of course not.
Crimes are commited in the name or religion all the time, but it all boils down to how you define atheist and believer.
Crimes are commited in the name or religion all the time, but it all boils down to how you define atheist and believer.
In my opinion...maybe. It depends of the person. Some religious guys commit murders in the name of God, however some religious guys just stay calm and condamn those acts.
Atheists can be brutal in the name of nothing or in the name of their country, but most of them are calm and condamn those acts
Atheists can be brutal in the name of nothing or in the name of their country, but most of them are calm and condamn those acts
Well, if you think about it this way, I'd say there are more religious people that are murders then athiests.
All you have to do is take a look at some "holy wars" such as the Crusade, Salem Witch trial, the current terrorist attacks with Bin Laden(whom in there view are doing the right thing and for Allah) and probably some others. All these were for the "holy causes".
All you have to do is take a look at some "holy wars" such as the Crusade, Salem Witch trial, the current terrorist attacks with Bin Laden(whom in there view are doing the right thing and for Allah) and probably some others. All these were for the "holy causes".
I have a neighbor and an uncle who are athiests and I can't even remember all of their crimes, I am a believer and I have a clean record and havn't even commited crimes.
| gonzo wrote: |
| Having no solid anchor for morality it seems they're more likely be violate laws that conflict with their 'personal morality' |
You don't have to be religious to have morals. And what about the recent troubles with the Mohammed cartoons? Rioting, is that a fellony? Assault? Breach of the peace?
Don't think you really thought about this one.
I'm pretty sure there was a study where most people in jail were Christians and much, much, fewer were Athiests. That may have something to do with people becoming much more religious when they are sent to jail, though.
Either way, morality is not exclusive to religion. In fact, it's down right offensive to try and imply that because I do not believe in an all-forgiving God that will let me off the hook whenever I sin, that I don't have morals that will stand up for yours. To some (not all) people, being religious can be seen as a scapegoat, as a way of justifying any crimes they commit.
Either way, morality is not exclusive to religion. In fact, it's down right offensive to try and imply that because I do not believe in an all-forgiving God that will let me off the hook whenever I sin, that I don't have morals that will stand up for yours. To some (not all) people, being religious can be seen as a scapegoat, as a way of justifying any crimes they commit.
You shouldn't need a religious text or belief to tell you that certain things are wrong. And if you do, perhaps you weren't that moral-driven to begin with.
I think that if people focussed more on the new testaments and Christians actually showed "Christian values" then, yes, Christians would commit less crimes than athiests. Yet, sadly, Christians are not ideal and still sin. It makes them look pretty bad as a group, preaching one thing and acting another. So, in conclusion, I think Christians probably commit about the same amount of crime as athiests.
| mschnell wrote: |
| I think that if people focussed more on the new testaments and Christians actually showed "Christian values" then, yes, Christians would commit less crimes than athiests. Yet, sadly, Christians are not ideal and still sin. It makes them look pretty bad as a group, preaching one thing and acting another. So, in conclusion, I think Christians probably commit about the same amount of crime as athiests. |
lmao, The Bible says you should kill someon if they;
Use Gods name in vain
Adulterate
or Work on the Sabbeth
lmao...
It seems that every society has a set amount of destructive people, regardless of being religious or not. (This may be genetic.)
Personally I don't think it has anything to do with religion whether or not a person commits a crime. People tend to twist their ideas around in their heads until they can tell themselves and others " this is in the name of my religion." In other words religious or not, a person can make themselves believe that what they are doing is right. Just like when one group tries to assimilate another claiming that it is for their own good since it will "save" them, when really they just don't like things that are different.
what religion you are doesn't really make much of a difference of what you would when u are desparate or something.
Everyone has their own set of rules of whats right and whats wrong, normally based on society.
I think everything depend on the society one grow up in!
Everyone has their own set of rules of whats right and whats wrong, normally based on society.
I think everything depend on the society one grow up in!
| Jack_Hammer wrote: | ||
lmao, The Bible says you should kill someon if they; Use Gods name in vain Adulterate or Work on the Sabbeth lmao... |
Did you see that I said the new testament? Do you know what a gospel is?
Imo morallity have little in common with religion.
But I am an atheist, so who am I to say?
But I am an atheist, so who am I to say?
Hmmm lets look at what we have here:
An atheist a person that has to live with his decisions and moral failures so everything depends on his personal morality.
Believer a person that can say he decided that way couse of God or can disburden his moral failures to the same God.
I would bet on the atheist hands down. But who am i, just an another atheist pointing her finger to the other side.
An atheist a person that has to live with his decisions and moral failures so everything depends on his personal morality.
Believer a person that can say he decided that way couse of God or can disburden his moral failures to the same God.
I would bet on the atheist hands down. But who am i, just an another atheist pointing her finger to the other side.
| Jack_Hammer wrote: | ||
lmao, The Bible says you should kill someon if they; Use Gods name in vain Adulterate or Work on the Sabbeth lmao... |
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Ever heard the phrase "Thou shalt not kill"? That's one of the 10 commandments, and Christians generally also oppose the senseless killing of innocent babies (a.k.a. Abortion). Think before you speak, or in this case, type.
Overall I don't think that religion has much to do with tendency to commit crimes, while in some cases this may be true, there are probably just the same amount that are untrue. Just because you have no god (a terrible life, actually) doesn't mean that you are bad by default, atheists can have morals too.
Be careful who you call Christian as well, I know plenty of fake Christians who just go through the motions and act holy on Sunday, but slobs the rest of the week.
| Soulfire wrote: |
|
Be careful who you call Christian as well, I know plenty of fake Christians who just go through the motions and act holy on Sunday, but slobs the rest of the week. |
I agree with a lot of what you say, but please note that faith, I believe, is what defines a Christian. You can get into a huge argument over what that means. I just don't think that these people you speak of are necessarily not Christian. They might be Christians that, perhaps, give Christians a bad name.
| mschnell wrote: | ||
I agree with a lot of what you say, but please note that faith, I believe, is what defines a Christian. You can get into a huge argument over what that means. I just don't think that these people you speak of are necessarily not Christian. They might be Christians that, perhaps, give Christians a bad name. |
Fake Christians meaning those who just do it to do it, and they don't really care either way.
I voted no, and here is why...
More people are killed in the name of a God, than those who are just killed for no apparent reason. Oh wait, World War 2..., you say... You think Hitler didn't view himself as a living God? You're only fooling yourself.
More people are killed in the name of a God, than those who are just killed for no apparent reason. Oh wait, World War 2..., you say... You think Hitler didn't view himself as a living God? You're only fooling yourself.
I dont believe in any gods or anything at all, yet i still know what is right and wrong morally. It has nothing to do with religion IMO. I know many people who dont believe in religion and they are all good people.
| jesterscourt wrote: |
| Oh wait, World War 2..., you say... You think Hitler didn't view himself as a living God? You're only fooling yourself. |
That doesn't even make sense man. Even if Hitler thought of himself as a God, that would have nothing to do with Christianity.
I would have to say that 'Christians' would not commit as many crimes as athiests or religious people. IF you are a true Christian and not just loosely using the term christian as most people use it. Christian means being of Christ or Christ like.
| SkullPizza wrote: |
| I would have to say no. I mean look at the Mafia. Those folks are always stereotypically going to church. |
I recall reading some years ago that Sicilian Mafia families had to declare willigness to violate the Ten Commandmentsm and to replace Church with the family
Just look at the people who hijacked the planes and crashed them into the World Trade centre, that was in the name of their religion..
IF it actually was terrorists . Or just some way for us to goto war with every country in the world.
First off I think a section of a forum discussing things such as religion is asking for trouble.
My personal beliefs as an Aetheist is that Religion was a needed part of old societys and even modern societys to give people a reason to have moral values. In my opinion this was the reason for the forming of religions.
I think in modern times we have other sources for these grounding of morals, namely the ability for more people to read, write and understand the effects everything they do will have. Some still need/want religion as a grounding for morals and that is fine, However most Aetheists have already confronted these problems and if they remain a true Aetheist have anchored morals to another point something they can weigh their actions against.
It is a hard thing to suggest that because people dont use the same grounding for their morals as others do that they are any less strong. I strongly condem many things which the bible, Koran (sorry if I spelt wrong) or any other religious texts say are wrong, however I dont use them as my basis for condeming instead I use realisation of the effects actions would have on other people.
My personal beliefs as an Aetheist is that Religion was a needed part of old societys and even modern societys to give people a reason to have moral values. In my opinion this was the reason for the forming of religions.
I think in modern times we have other sources for these grounding of morals, namely the ability for more people to read, write and understand the effects everything they do will have. Some still need/want religion as a grounding for morals and that is fine, However most Aetheists have already confronted these problems and if they remain a true Aetheist have anchored morals to another point something they can weigh their actions against.
It is a hard thing to suggest that because people dont use the same grounding for their morals as others do that they are any less strong. I strongly condem many things which the bible, Koran (sorry if I spelt wrong) or any other religious texts say are wrong, however I dont use them as my basis for condeming instead I use realisation of the effects actions would have on other people.
| Quote: |
| an Aetheist is that Religion was a needed part of old societys and even modern societys to give people a reason to have moral values. In my opinion this was the reason for the forming of religions. |
Personally I think that although morality is a good reason for Religion to exist most belief systems are followed (be they correct or not) because they give purpose to life and hypothetically absolve the need to fear death.
In terms of Christianity this means follow the religion and heaven or hell it's all OK. (Though heaven is probably prefferable).
Hence the hordes of people who stick to Christianty as a faith yet don't follow the faiths tenets (Sabbath, Adultery, Murder etc.).
Especially when given the Catholic opportunity for absolution of sin through confession.
If you look at faith this way a religeous person will not be inclined towards "sinning" but will digress on occasion none-the-less.
Atheists are completely different, a "true" athest (reffering one who believes in no god, spirits or afterlife (1 in 3 Atheists fit these conditions)) has accepted or is aware that when they die (if they are correct) they will be nothing more than a chunk of inactive meat (as opposed to active meat) and (from a belief if not actual perspective) can't be bought (no fear of heaven or hell) since they are aware of their lives being meaningless. However, existence without meaning screws with the mind and some justification needs to be found for an Atheist to find drive (even if that justification is "I need time to justify my existence", which is a common drive). In doing this an Athest will normally define their own morals from a logical point of view, supposing that they do not care about the state punishment (common factor between criminal theist & atheist) they may for example decide:
"I do not like to be robbed, if I rob someone I have no grounds for being upset if robbed in return, therefore I won't rob another"
Of course that reason is ridiculous ("statistically I'll be burgled whether I am a criminal or not") so may be easily forgotten as may any other justification.
So an atheist can steal without guilt, moral twinges or fear of punishment.
But
Considering the argument "I need to eat or I'll die, therefore I shall eat"
which can be countered by "If I eat I will still eventually die, the interim is unimportant as it has no meaning"
One can conclude that starving is as justifiable as stealing.
So in order to justify eg."not starving to death" one pretends eg."one should not steal", and by following such useless logic a reason for life is found.
Hence
Atheists will create their own morals and tend to follow them (even though they do not need to) but will only create morals logical to them, they're unlikely to break their own rules but will happily break those which do not make sense to them (or that they simply do not agree with).
moral example: to an Atheist murder is easy to justify, robbery less so.
Theists will follow prescribed rules and morals but will on occasion break them feeling guilt and fear having done so or will twist their belief structure to accomodate the breakagė
moral example: to a Theist murder is wrong, as is robbery yet kidnapping is undefined
This doesńt help too much with the topic but does show that an Atheist is more likely to commit the same crime multiple time while a religious person will commit an individual crime only once or twice.
Kimrei although I agree with your reasoning that religion could exist because it gives purpouse to life and no fear of death I have to disagree that lack of religion means lack of purpose.
For people Theistic ore Atheist the meaning of life is not known, Theistic simply believe that there is something to go onto making their purpouse to get there. Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond life and could possibly therefore have more drive to live? But the purpouse of an atheists life is as you say one they have to make for themselves. Mine is simply to enjoy it and do everything I can to do so since at the end of it I really dont need a body in perfect condition, I need to be able to die knowing I achieved all my mind could think of. My purpouse therefore is to do everything (within possibilities) that I can think of.
I also disagree that Atheists make their own morals. I think that even though religion isnt setting morals Society is. I dont steal not because I think someone then has a right to steal back but rather I dont steal because to do so would damage someone elses life, take something that they worked to get, that they achieved. To find my morals I put myself in the victims shoes and if I wouldnt like it I wouldnt do it. I dont fancy getting killed, stolen from, used.. so I dont do it to others.
If anything this method of open thinking could for some people give them more morals than religion would.
For people Theistic ore Atheist the meaning of life is not known, Theistic simply believe that there is something to go onto making their purpouse to get there. Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond life and could possibly therefore have more drive to live? But the purpouse of an atheists life is as you say one they have to make for themselves. Mine is simply to enjoy it and do everything I can to do so since at the end of it I really dont need a body in perfect condition, I need to be able to die knowing I achieved all my mind could think of. My purpouse therefore is to do everything (within possibilities) that I can think of.
I also disagree that Atheists make their own morals. I think that even though religion isnt setting morals Society is. I dont steal not because I think someone then has a right to steal back but rather I dont steal because to do so would damage someone elses life, take something that they worked to get, that they achieved. To find my morals I put myself in the victims shoes and if I wouldnt like it I wouldnt do it. I dont fancy getting killed, stolen from, used.. so I dont do it to others.
If anything this method of open thinking could for some people give them more morals than religion would.
| kimrei wrote: |
|
This doesn't help too much with the topic but does show that an Atheist is more likely to commit the same crime multiple time while a religious person will commit an individual crime only once or twice. |
Religious people have committed multiple crimes hwen such is justified through religion. The question of when people act morally can be answered by referring to 4 spheres:
1. genetic predisposition
2. effects of personal biography
3. situations which move people toward empathy and those which move them toward cruelty or apathy (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300087152/103-0170478-0874253?v=glance&n=283155 for an example of a book discussing this sphere)
4. belief in the meaning of and hopeful non-nihilistic attitude toward life (affected by all the previous shperes, but also by religion)
| KernEnergie wrote: |
| Some religious guys commit murders in the name of God |
Or Allah.
In my personal opinion overall religious people are more likely to commit a crime, first of all a commen mistake made by many religious people about atheist is that they think that because one is atheist one values life less than someone who is religious. How can this possible make sense though? Think about it one who is atheist lives life to their fullest it's all about having a great life not about always beign under control, but ofcourse this doesn't mean that every athiest is going around breaking the law because ofcourse there is commen sense (commen sense is basicly what the bible teches one, which in this time is pretty useless.) Finally, true athiest will probably be the nicest people that one can meet for anything really, athiest parents raise their kids very well by teaching them about religion and philosophy basicly giving out both points of views and letting their kids what they basicly whant to do, this is something that sadly alot of religions parents don't do simple becuase they don't know both sides themselves. Therefore, to say that you have a higher chance of commiting crimes simple because you are athiest makes no sense because the kids are raised better and there can be no mental traumas or anything really.
One can even say that religious people are the ones who mainly commit crimes, for example all the worst people to ever commit crimes on this world where all from religious backgrounds even from a extremely religious family, but their parents messed their kids up with all the religion because that can really screw up a kid, so when they grew older they where already messed up. Another point is that one can pretty much be sure that even till this day religion is the biggest reason for the deaths in this world.
One can even say that religious people are the ones who mainly commit crimes, for example all the worst people to ever commit crimes on this world where all from religious backgrounds even from a extremely religious family, but their parents messed their kids up with all the religion because that can really screw up a kid, so when they grew older they where already messed up. Another point is that one can pretty much be sure that even till this day religion is the biggest reason for the deaths in this world.
| Soulfire wrote: | ||||
Fake Christians meaning those who just do it to do it, and they don't really care either way. |
The Crusades
| madsencarl wrote: | ||
Or Allah. |
Allah means god in arabic...
| Quote: |
| Kimrei although I agree with your reasoning that religion could exist because it gives purpouse to life and no fear of death I have to disagree that lack of religion means lack of purpose.
I also disagree that Atheists make their own morals. I think that even though religion isnt setting morals Society is. . |
You're right., I was talking from a point of view of absolute ideals
Society often decides morals but more by influencing reasoning or acting as a relgion (I didńt want to make that post too big
) and I meant final purposė
With society parodying hell with jails and comparing pats on the back with heaven it creates that moral structure that is often absent by making a default onė An atheist can still ignore those rules without guilt if they rationalize ignoring them to themselves perfectly (Dismissing such things as fear, conditioning and habit)
In terms of lack of purpose I mean overall and longterm purposė
One can create for oneself many small purposes meant to last a lifetime or till the next day but at their conclusion an absolute purpose is still missinġ.
Christianity bypasses the need for finding a purpose for oneself by passing the responsibility of having one into the hands of god who is perfect and therefore would naturally have an absolute one. Even if one realises that such a situation is impossible (because an absolute purposes fulfillment negates its need) god has the purpose of Being there forever. If an atheist sets the goal of living till the next day as their purpose it would fit but only if they can guarantee that they will always be able to fulfill that goaŀ As long as death is unavoidable an atheist has no purpose because they will eventually cease to exist and without their existence all preceding actions become pointless.
You have to think backwards for it to make sensė Find something that being done now would make sense tomorrow at the a hypothetical end of time and you have found reason to livė
Oh please. This is just too much something to laugh at, but I'll try to stick to the point and avoid making fun of the ignorant zealot's preaching.
Nowadays moral values and the (whatever) church are two really different things, to the extent that MORALITY is actually a set of values a determined society considers good and praisable, and CHURCH is a bunch of men in robes that say they speak for an allmighty god that can't speak by himself. Note the lack of the O in god as opposing to good.
Thousands of really fervent believers commit the worst atrocities without blinking -killing, maiming, raping children, lying, beating to death, stoning, etc) mainly because society's moral and (whatever)church's moral are two really different things instead of two coincidental sets of 'good-bad tables'.
I'll complete later.
| Quote: |
| Having no solid anchor for morality it seems they're more likely be violate laws that conflict with their 'personal morality' |
Nowadays moral values and the (whatever) church are two really different things, to the extent that MORALITY is actually a set of values a determined society considers good and praisable, and CHURCH is a bunch of men in robes that say they speak for an allmighty god that can't speak by himself. Note the lack of the O in god as opposing to good.
Thousands of really fervent believers commit the worst atrocities without blinking -killing, maiming, raping children, lying, beating to death, stoning, etc) mainly because society's moral and (whatever)church's moral are two really different things instead of two coincidental sets of 'good-bad tables'.
I'll complete later.
i'm an atheist. am i a fellon? no, and far from one. the way people interact with others and live their lives isn't solely based on their religious beliefs (or lackthereof). sure, it can be, but i think it has much more to do with upbringing. if you grow up watching people steal, kill, and hate, chances are, you will too. but if you're raised by a family who teaches you right from wrong, and how to have simple human compassion, you're most likely going to live your life that same way.
I'm also an atheist and to be honest I do commit the occasional crime but never one that would in anyway harm another person or cause them any trouble whatsoever.
After all some laws are just ridiculous.
After all some laws are just ridiculous.
I believe everyone has a set path that is already predained for them, but every one has thier own opinion. Just have moral you know treat others they way you want to be treated. do not lie, cheat, steal, kill, or all the other million dirty thing that the creul people of this world does every day, hour , minute, so do the best that you can and be happy for once dont be scared to take a chance every once in awhile. That is what life is taking chances. Just try to be happy do what makes you happy.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg
Religion being defined as a set of rules and beliefs.
Religion being defined as a set of rules and beliefs.
Since believers are likely to have a set of rules they think more important (even to the absolute) then the "worldly"law, they can break the law and still think they were right. Atheists don't have this problem.
Such as the whole jihad mess ne.
In my opinion, fellony does not have anything to do with religion.
Religion in fact is just an excuse fellons give for their acts and I hate them for that.
There are many things that can make a person good or a fellon, major factor I think is upbringing/good parents.
Religion in fact is just an excuse fellons give for their acts and I hate them for that.
There are many things that can make a person good or a fellon, major factor I think is upbringing/good parents.
W.O.W
This relates to "racism" in a religious sense...I wish there was a law against it and that you be fined for stating such accusations!
And you know what else? it's been said already....When a person commits a crime, if they are atheist, they do it because they wanted to...And on the other side, you will have situations that fellons who are belivers, say they did it in the name of god..
Now that, not only proves your point wrong, but also emphasizes the hypocricy of the so-called beliver, which makes the whole thing 1000 times worse...
Anyways, this poll is outrageous, I'd delete it if I were an admin...
but then again, that's just me...
S.
This relates to "racism" in a religious sense...I wish there was a law against it and that you be fined for stating such accusations!
And you know what else? it's been said already....When a person commits a crime, if they are atheist, they do it because they wanted to...And on the other side, you will have situations that fellons who are belivers, say they did it in the name of god..
Now that, not only proves your point wrong, but also emphasizes the hypocricy of the so-called beliver, which makes the whole thing 1000 times worse...
Anyways, this poll is outrageous, I'd delete it if I were an admin...
but then again, that's just me...
S.
| Quote: |
| W.O.W
This relates to "racism" in a religious sense...I wish there was a law against it and that you be fined for stating such accusations! Mad And you know what else? it's been said already....When a person commits a crime, if they are atheist, they do it because they wanted to...And on the other side, you will have situations that fellons who are belivers, say they did it in the name of god.. Now that, not only proves your point wrong, but also emphasizes the hypocricy of the so-called beliver, which makes the whole thing 1000 times worse... Anyways, this poll is outrageous, I'd delete it if I were an admin... but then again, that's just me... S. |
Race and religion are completely different.
Race is something you are born with that in no way influences who you are except from a societal point of view.
Religion is chosen, most definitely is an integral part of your philosophy and who you are and reflects whatever you want to think and therefore can discriminated against as you would discriminate against someones belief concerning the death penalty, abortion or gratuitous murder.
| srdjan wrote: |
| Anyways, this poll is outrageous, I'd delete it if I were an admin... |
The user that started this topic is already banned. I'm leaving this topic as is has a decent discussion. I partly agree with your statement, though.
a lot of big researches done on the topic ,crime, states the fact that the main reason of beeing a criminal comes from: local enviroment (School, friends...etc), Family( problems at home) and some inheritance.
Crime is done by all sorts of people with all sorts of belives or no belives.
Crime is done by all sorts of people with all sorts of belives or no belives.
Some people think that atheists have no morals and think that it's good to do what you want. However, this is totally not true. There's something called "ethics", and this has actually nothing to do with religion (religions have an ethical side mostly, but ethics on itselfs has nothing to do with religion.) I think, I'm not sure since I never have researched this, that most atheists know what is 'good' and what is 'wrong', and they realize that a society in which there is no law, isn't a society. That said, I think that atheists aren't more likely to commit crime.
The Poll is too general.
There is a website that showed the stats for war deaths in the last 100 years. The highest number of deaths were not due to religion but tied to race. Genocide!
Tribalism, Nationalism etc… Killing off the non-humans who don’t deserve to live.
Racism…
Nazis, Pol Pot, China Nationalism, Rwanda, Bosnia..etc…
In some places it would be hard to un-filter the laws that are religiously based from the Atheist’s in some societies. In regions where the laws are religiously based, atheists would be more likely to commit a crime because their personal beliefs are in contradiction of the law. Practicing homosexuality used to be illegal in most US States for example.
In some regions, religions like Christianity were illegal and in some places still are. This would mean a Christian would be committing a crime just for believing. Being a Christian used to carry the death penalty, in Afghanistan it still does.
An American Atheist would be too integrated with the social influences of religion to be part of the poll. Especially when a lot of Atheist are more of an Elitists. They would never commit a crime that could be an opportunity for a “Religious” person to throw the yellow flag.
Most Atheists I know are neutralists and don’t fit the Genocidal profile. But there are some more radical atheist that would like to eradicate religion. Even though religion seems to be a beneficial mutation
SIDE NOTE:
The Crusades were not as much a religious war but rather a war between Rome’s power over England’s King to send him and his poor folks over to fight off the Moslems in the Middle East. The common man had no access to the scriptures that would have said the Crusades were wrong. The “Politics of Zionism” are still at work today.
Christianity in the sense of Disciples of Jesus has nothing in common with the Crusades.
There is a website that showed the stats for war deaths in the last 100 years. The highest number of deaths were not due to religion but tied to race. Genocide!
Tribalism, Nationalism etc… Killing off the non-humans who don’t deserve to live.
Racism…
Nazis, Pol Pot, China Nationalism, Rwanda, Bosnia..etc…
In some places it would be hard to un-filter the laws that are religiously based from the Atheist’s in some societies. In regions where the laws are religiously based, atheists would be more likely to commit a crime because their personal beliefs are in contradiction of the law. Practicing homosexuality used to be illegal in most US States for example.
In some regions, religions like Christianity were illegal and in some places still are. This would mean a Christian would be committing a crime just for believing. Being a Christian used to carry the death penalty, in Afghanistan it still does.
An American Atheist would be too integrated with the social influences of religion to be part of the poll. Especially when a lot of Atheist are more of an Elitists. They would never commit a crime that could be an opportunity for a “Religious” person to throw the yellow flag.
Most Atheists I know are neutralists and don’t fit the Genocidal profile. But there are some more radical atheist that would like to eradicate religion. Even though religion seems to be a beneficial mutation
SIDE NOTE:
The Crusades were not as much a religious war but rather a war between Rome’s power over England’s King to send him and his poor folks over to fight off the Moslems in the Middle East. The common man had no access to the scriptures that would have said the Crusades were wrong. The “Politics of Zionism” are still at work today.
Christianity in the sense of Disciples of Jesus has nothing in common with the Crusades.
Well, not all atheists are bad people. Just because they have no religious leader doesn't mean they are mentaly corrupt. Sure, some atheist are fellons but then again a little of all religions has fellons. If they didn't, the world would be free from crime and all would be at peace.
Still, there are pageans who do not believe in God and his teachings which means that to try to show this they disobey the commandments and can be a potential for fellony. But, this is just my opinion.
Still, there are pageans who do not believe in God and his teachings which means that to try to show this they disobey the commandments and can be a potential for fellony. But, this is just my opinion.
anyone who sais yes. Bullshit
im an aetheist and i am a law abiding nice friendly person
And all i am going to say now is this
Hitler
im an aetheist and i am a law abiding nice friendly person
And all i am going to say now is this
Hitler
Being an athiest is not the same thing as having antipersonallity disorder. Athieists are able to see the rights of other people and to respect them. Athieists are also able to respect that things like law and rules are necessary to have a funcioning society. They are not the same thing as anarchists. They are not morally lax nor are they free basing ideas from anti-moral assuptions.
I believe there is a god, I dunno there is many or only one.
but I really hate all of existing religion today. they just too fanactic, phatetic, or even I dunno how to describe it. this day religion sometime is too .com(dot com) otherwise narrow mind. I dunno it because the teaching bad and not up to date, or maybe the people (leader or any religion) is bad. of course there are many reason.
but I'm sure I dun like any religion meanwhile I dun want to be atheist, cause I believe it, there is a god.
anyway one thing I'm sure claiming atheist is bad just the stupid thing which teach by a religion. people have their own way for his life. there are many moral teaching beside religion. the civilization is not start from religion.
saying those who not believe in god will be curse or go to hell which always teaching in any religion just #$*(&$*#. if this is real let them be. let the 'bad' god curse them. as long as we are in the world and not hell, people should not curse each other. those who teaching a 'curse' to other race for me is bad religion. ^_^
I believe a 'good' god never curse or hate what he has create.
my comment .
but I really hate all of existing religion today. they just too fanactic, phatetic, or even I dunno how to describe it. this day religion sometime is too .com(dot com) otherwise narrow mind. I dunno it because the teaching bad and not up to date, or maybe the people (leader or any religion) is bad. of course there are many reason.
but I'm sure I dun like any religion meanwhile I dun want to be atheist, cause I believe it, there is a god.
anyway one thing I'm sure claiming atheist is bad just the stupid thing which teach by a religion. people have their own way for his life. there are many moral teaching beside religion. the civilization is not start from religion.
saying those who not believe in god will be curse or go to hell which always teaching in any religion just #$*(&$*#. if this is real let them be. let the 'bad' god curse them. as long as we are in the world and not hell, people should not curse each other. those who teaching a 'curse' to other race for me is bad religion. ^_^
I believe a 'good' god never curse or hate what he has create.
my comment .
First: Atheists have morals because of religion. The morals taught in most religions has been a basis for all social codes and laws. Most atheists, for some odd reason, are too narrow-minded to even consider the fact that perhaps there was something other than themselves who came up with good morals. The social code we all now live by is largely and directly influenced by religion. At least, it use to be. Now that society has the morals, most people disconnect it with religion, as if these morals were achieved by human's own doing.
If you wanted to compare a society composed entirely of Christians, and entirely of atheists, undoubtedly the atheistic society would have a substantially higher crime/muder rate. Without the morals that religion teaches, we would have all killed eachother long ago.
There was one comment that caught my eye--it couldn't be any further from the truth.
Assuming you're speaking of the God depicted in the Christian Bible:
God is the whole reason we have morals today. Animals have no souls--they cannot be saved the same way humans are. There were not created in God's image, and hence they are immoral.
God exists not to forgive sinners. Sinners exists that they may believe and be saved by God.
Believers are most likely to be sinners? Are you honestly that naieve? The only difference between believers and non-believers is that believers believe in God; they believe in Christ Jesus as their Saviour. No other comment can be said concerning the difference between believers and non-believers. Although, if the Christian in question is devout, they are most likely to have even higher morals, because they follow the Bible's teachings so strictly. 'Tis a fact that morals cannot be credited to any other source.
If you wanted to compare a society composed entirely of Christians, and entirely of atheists, undoubtedly the atheistic society would have a substantially higher crime/muder rate. Without the morals that religion teaches, we would have all killed eachother long ago.
There was one comment that caught my eye--it couldn't be any further from the truth.
| nam_siddharth wrote: |
| God has nothing to do with morality. There is a God to forgive sins of those, who is believer. So, believers are most likely to be sinners. |
Assuming you're speaking of the God depicted in the Christian Bible:
God is the whole reason we have morals today. Animals have no souls--they cannot be saved the same way humans are. There were not created in God's image, and hence they are immoral.
God exists not to forgive sinners. Sinners exists that they may believe and be saved by God.
Believers are most likely to be sinners? Are you honestly that naieve? The only difference between believers and non-believers is that believers believe in God; they believe in Christ Jesus as their Saviour. No other comment can be said concerning the difference between believers and non-believers. Although, if the Christian in question is devout, they are most likely to have even higher morals, because they follow the Bible's teachings so strictly. 'Tis a fact that morals cannot be credited to any other source.
| doomz wrote: |
| I believe there is a god, I dunno there is many or only one.
but I really hate all of existing religion today. they just too fanactic, phatetic, or even I dunno how to describe it. this day religion sometime is too .com(dot com) otherwise narrow mind. I dunno it because the teaching bad and not up to date, or maybe the people (leader or any religion) is bad. of course there are many reason. but I'm sure I dun like any religion meanwhile I dun want to be atheist, cause I believe it, there is a god. anyway one thing I'm sure claiming atheist is bad just the stupid thing which teach by a religion. people have their own way for his life. there are many moral teaching beside religion. the civilization is not start from religion. saying those who not believe in god will be curse or go to hell which always teaching in any religion just #$*(&$*#. if this is real let them be. let the 'bad' god curse them. as long as we are in the world and not hell, people should not curse each other. those who teaching a 'curse' to other race for me is bad religion. ^_^ I believe a 'good' god never curse or hate what he has create. my comment . |
You seem to have a set stereotype concerning Conservative Christians. Not all Christian religions act this way--there are the contemporary denominations, however I won't comment on them any further..
I think I made it clear in my previous post that religion is the source of morals. This may just be opinion, but I think that contradicts your theory that cvilization did not start in/from religion, but that's based on my beliefs. Even if religion came afterwards, it was probably the only successful way of keep some sort of organization and control of people--perhaps even keeping them alive. Whatever, that's all opinionated.
I don't want to drive you away from any religion, because it's important you remain firm in whatever belief you may have; that you know exactly what you believe in. At least, I think it might help, just to meditate on the thoughts for a while.. But I digress...
Your last point, that God curses all unbelievers? In one sense, it is only fair. It is all that we deserve. How gracious any god should be that we would receive blessings at any time in our life instead of eternal damnation! You have to admit that humans/people are corrupted--there's no doubt in that. It's human nature to sin, one way or another. Everyone has a chance to believe in whatever they want--that's this god's way of giving everyone a chance. If people deny the chance to believe, they've already cursed and condemned themselves--by their own will, they're going to eternal damnation (but that varies from religion to religion). So far, this seems to be a just god, not a "bad" god.
One last point--Christian religions do not preach against race. Unless "unbelievers" are a race, now? Even if they were, most religions that I know of don't "preach against" these people, but try to connect to them as spiritual brothers, not enemies. But all of that gets fuzzy with each religion and its teachings. I'd encourage you to find a religion (any) that you're comfortable with. It helped me be more comfortable in my own skin, at least.
Anyone who thinks people only have morals because of religion is short sited.
how can you think religion is the basis for everything people know whats good and whats bad.
Religion- Killing is bad, taking away someones life against there will is naughty.
Everyone else- Hmmmmm, killing is great, lets go kill some right now. Thankgod we aint religious. Thats a tre bon snobby view of religion.
Besides doesnt the bible say Incest is wrong? Well, somewhere along the line Adam and Eve got lost if you now what im saying, he he hehe.
The bible cant be the foundation for morals because the contradictions rule superior, that would also suggest if religion vanished then so would the worlds morals.
how can you think religion is the basis for everything people know whats good and whats bad.
Religion- Killing is bad, taking away someones life against there will is naughty.
Everyone else- Hmmmmm, killing is great, lets go kill some right now. Thankgod we aint religious. Thats a tre bon snobby view of religion.
Besides doesnt the bible say Incest is wrong? Well, somewhere along the line Adam and Eve got lost if you now what im saying, he he hehe.
The bible cant be the foundation for morals because the contradictions rule superior, that would also suggest if religion vanished then so would the worlds morals.
Have you even considered that you may be the short-sighted one? It makes perfectly logical sense, assuming you're willing to consider that you're wrong.
Religion teaches good morals. Where else do you find good morals? Certainly not under the influence of men, unless you're referring to the social code, which was largely impacted by religion and its morals.
Do you think Adam and Eve had the Bible the minute they were created? Of course not! They were perfect! Additionally, the people of that time (when God was still a large part of daily life and tradition) were immoral--there were no morals because everyone was still created in God's image. How can you have good morals if there's no evil to teach against? Hence, they were immoral. Also, since sin was so limited way back then, the genetic diseases and deformaties that we have now did not exist--there was no consequences for incest.
Your last point has gone off track--I never said that the Bible teaches morals. Religion in general does. You're still very narrow-minded, I see, and are relying off of your stereotypes to judge my comments. I don't understand your comment about contradicting the superior? You lost me there...
I never said morals would vanish the instant religion did either. Good morals guarantees a longer life for the majority of a population, so why would anyone suddenly become immoral just because religion isn't part of their lives? It's still part of the social code, at least.
Religion teaches good morals. Where else do you find good morals? Certainly not under the influence of men, unless you're referring to the social code, which was largely impacted by religion and its morals.
Do you think Adam and Eve had the Bible the minute they were created? Of course not! They were perfect! Additionally, the people of that time (when God was still a large part of daily life and tradition) were immoral--there were no morals because everyone was still created in God's image. How can you have good morals if there's no evil to teach against? Hence, they were immoral. Also, since sin was so limited way back then, the genetic diseases and deformaties that we have now did not exist--there was no consequences for incest.
Your last point has gone off track--I never said that the Bible teaches morals. Religion in general does. You're still very narrow-minded, I see, and are relying off of your stereotypes to judge my comments. I don't understand your comment about contradicting the superior? You lost me there...
I never said morals would vanish the instant religion did either. Good morals guarantees a longer life for the majority of a population, so why would anyone suddenly become immoral just because religion isn't part of their lives? It's still part of the social code, at least.
| Quote: |
| You seem to have a set stereotype concerning Conservative Christians. Not all Christian religions act this way--there are the contemporary denominations, however I won't comment on them any further..
|
at first I've to state my post above not refer to specified (Christian) religion.
| Quote: |
|
I think I made it clear in my previous post that religion is the source of morals. This may just be opinion, but I think that contradicts your theory that cvilization did not start in/from religion, but that's based on my beliefs. Even if religion came afterwards, it was probably the only successful way of keep some sort of organization and control of people--perhaps even keeping them alive. Whatever, that's all opinionated. |
you have your point, I agree.
but what I mean above is humanity alrady have thier own style of morale before religion exist. in other word of today those ancient people can be refer to atheist too, but their still have their way to live and build their civilization. that's mean atheist is not just the title of this topic said. (just some comment for the main topic) ^_^. so if somebody have the thinking Atheist don't have morale or some doombringer, is wrong.
| Quote: |
|
I don't want to drive you away from any religion, because it's important you remain firm in whatever belief you may have; that you know exactly what you believe in. At least, I think it might help, just to meditate on the thoughts for a while.. But I digress... |
I'm not Atheist, and I still doing my religion rule, just don't like some of most religion teaching. don't worry meditate is good. I'm also do that for sometime.
| Quote: |
|
Your last point, that God curses all unbelievers? In one sense, it is only fair. It is all that we deserve. How gracious any god should be that we would receive blessings at any time in our life instead of eternal damnation! You have to admit that humans/people are corrupted--there's no doubt in that. It's human nature to sin, one way or another. Everyone has a chance to believe in whatever they want--that's this god's way of giving everyone a chance. If people deny the chance to believe, they've already cursed and condemned themselves--by their own will, they're going to eternal damnation (but that varies from religion to religion). So far, this seems to be a just god, not a "bad" god. |
you think of that because you were taught like that. just imagine that never written some "curse" word in the teaching.now you see, finally is not the God that you believe cursed them but the person who believe has curse them (unbelieveer/atheist). at last this curse from human mind turn to action by harass those people their curse. sometime with violence.
example: people already have some negative image when he heard something about 'atheist', this kind of thought lead people to do (action) bad thing to them. just like we feel disgusting when we hear "human shit" even it far from you and you haven't see it with your eye.
| Quote: |
|
One last point--Christian religions do not preach against race. Unless "unbelievers" are a race, now? Even if they were, most religions that I know of don't "preach against" these people, but try to connect to them as spiritual brothers, not enemies. But all of that gets fuzzy with each religion and its teachings. I'd encourage you to find a religion (any) that you're comfortable with. It helped me be more comfortable in my own skin, at least. |
if you talk about Christian, I used to read holy bible before, at first (before Jesus story) there are a lot of killing, and some nation also be cursed (Egypt in Moses story). I just think why God have to curse Egyptian, why God just don't punish them in hell later. of course God can bring the Jewish out of Egypt without casualities from both side.... etc
fortunaly afterward Jesus story just the peacemaker story. ^_^
God is most Clever in the world, He/She should do win-win solution. not just like Moses story.
(quote)"Christian religions do not preach against race"(quote)
I'm sure of it too. peace ^_^
| doomz wrote: |
| at first I've to state my post above not refer to specified (Christian) religion. |
Ah, my bad.
That's just what I inferred--I'm not too happy with some conservative churches either, but whatever.. It's no biggie (to me, anyway)
| Quote: |
| you have your point, I agree.
but what I mean above is humanity alrady have thier own style of morale before religion exist. in other word of today those ancient people can be refer to atheist too, but their still have their way to live and build their civilization. that's mean atheist is not just the title of this topic said. (just some comment for the main topic) ^_^. so if somebody have the thinking Atheist don't have morale or some doombringer, is wrong. |
A bit confusing English there, but I think I got the jist of it. If the basic Christian religion is true, there were immoral humans that came first. They were immoral because they were perfect. Then sin came, and religion had to be produced to teach Adam/Eve of the morals they needed to follow, since they ceased being perfect. So in that sense, religion did come first.
I think I've had the mindset that atheists only get their morals because of society. Society used to be perfect, with the morals introduced by religion. Little by little, society continues to degrade each year, falling further and further into corruption. Luckily the morals still remain, although they origin still comes from religion. No matter how far an atheist wants to get from any religion, it's influences have touched every corner of this world; there's just no escape, to say they hold such high morale on their own.
| Quote: |
|
I'm not Atheist, and I still doing my religion rule, just don't like some of most religion teaching. don't worry meditate is good. I'm also do that for sometime. |
I'm just curious to know if you have any church or gathering with others of the same faith--it always helps to converse with others, to be firm in what you believe in. But sometimes meditation is all you need. I'm no God, so I can't say
| Quote: |
|
you think of that because you were taught like that. just imagine that never written some "curse" word in the teaching.now you see, finally is not the God that you believe cursed them but the person who believe has curse them (unbelieveer/atheist). at last this curse from human mind turn to action by harass those people their curse. sometime with violence. example: people already have some negative image when he heard something about 'atheist', this kind of thought lead people to do (action) bad thing to them. just like we feel disgusting when we hear "human ****" even it far from you and you haven't see it with your eye. |
I apologize, but I have a hard time understanding what you're trying to convey. I've done enough of my own research to know what I believe in. And although God may hold up his sword against sinners, it is only fair and just that he do so. I don't hold judgement against people just because I think "Oh no! They're going to hell because they sinned against my Lord!" No, I'm just not that religious. But when someone, on their own accord, insults my own beliefs, I'm sure to defend what I know to be true. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I enjoy debating these topics. Not for "religious" purposes, but I think they serve to enlighten us all on alternate view points.
| Quote: |
|
if you talk about Christian, I used to read holy bible before, at first (before Jesus story) there are a lot of killing, and some nation also be cursed (Egypt in Moses story). I just think why God have to curse Egyptian, why God just don't punish them in hell later. of course God can bring the Jewish out of Egypt without casualities from both side.... etc fortunaly afterward Jesus story just the peacemaker story. ^_^ |
God had his own chosen people, because the rest of the world was too far from him (idolatry, mainly). Have you ever heard, "First for the Jew, then for the Gentile"? After most Jews denied the message God was trying to send--about their salvation--then he open up heaven's gates to all people, not just Jews. The New Testament preches the gospel to all people of all races. Any racially-based punishment is from the Old Testament, when times were much different, and the Jews were the only people close to God.
| Quote: |
|
God is most Clever in the world, He/She should do win-win solution. not just like Moses story. |
I often wonder why he doesn't. But that's his plan--we won't know until we ask him in heaven. It sure makes for an interesting story, though!
Maybe i am being a little anrrowminded, but what im really trying to say is, that i know my morals, i know what is wrong, what is right, im not religious in the slightest, it was my parents, they taght me, as there parents taught them, been good IS built in, being bad IS built in. It doesnt come from some book.
as an aetheist i believe in evolution there for there was always sin and always evolution, and what i was meerly stating was that you make it sound it is in mans every interest to be evil and kill people. Which i think is quite a faulty statement
as an aetheist i believe in evolution there for there was always sin and always evolution, and what i was meerly stating was that you make it sound it is in mans every interest to be evil and kill people. Which i think is quite a faulty statement
| Yantaal wrote: |
| Maybe i am being a little anrrowminded, but what im really trying to say is, that i know my morals, i know what is wrong, what is right, im not religious in the slightest, it was my parents, they taght me, as there parents taught them, been good IS built in, being bad IS built in. It doesnt come from some book.
as an aetheist i believe in evolution there for there was always sin and always evolution, and what i was meerly stating was that you make it sound it is in mans every interest to be evil and kill people. Which i think is quite a faulty statement |
I apologize for no wording my previous post more politely then. It appears I've created the wrong image..
What my point is that all these morals--taught from generation to generation, upheld by our government and fulfilling the social code, originally came from religion. Even if all religions were man-made, it was the first form of organization within a population that also guaranteed a long life for the individual, because of the good morals (do not murder, etc) taught by each religion. Undoubtedly there is more evil than good in our world right now. It's impossible for me to immagine that we, a corrupted species, would even be capable of spawning the first morals (and actually having success, too).
As a Christian I cannot believe in evolution. But I also have a reason: evolution has yet to be observed. Sure, there's all these "signs" that may/may not indicate one thing or antoher, but evolution in it's prime has yet to be experienced or observed. The closest we've come is monitoring virus mutations--and we still don't know if they're even alive! From my own research and from what I've been taught, I can safely say evolution is much less probably than intelligent design. Religion just so happens to fit that plan of intelligent design.
Back to people... I'm sure we all want to do good. But how many of us actually are good? Nobody, in my eyes. Our sinful nature has engulfed everyone one of us, and although we may wish to be good, our sinful nature twists that into something horrible. More often than not, even the want to do good is lost, replaced by greed and self-perpetuation in society.
| Juparis wrote: |
|
As a Christian I cannot believe in evolution. But I also have a reason: evolution has yet to be observed. |
Are you sure? Read. Comment. Quite a few examples of observed evolution, it think.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
First link: Waaaaaaaaaaay too long--can't read it at the moment
Second link: I skimmed through it and saw some basic cases of sterile cross-breeding. How is that evolution? The most we can do is find cases of mutation and label them as evolution. However, evolution is supposedly the survival instincts of a species taking active--as in, intentional--action to change the genetics of that species to better adapt/suit to the evironment.
Cross-breeding is not evolution, no matter how you try to word it.
The same goes for mutation. It's an errorous, rare occurance that has nothing to do with basic survival instincts of any kind. But when 1 of 334 billion cases looks like it benefits the species, suddenly it's labelled as evolution
Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. Fact remains that scientists have yet to see/observe evolution. Everything is only getting more complex and chaotic. There's no actual evolution.
Second link: I skimmed through it and saw some basic cases of sterile cross-breeding. How is that evolution? The most we can do is find cases of mutation and label them as evolution. However, evolution is supposedly the survival instincts of a species taking active--as in, intentional--action to change the genetics of that species to better adapt/suit to the evironment.
Cross-breeding is not evolution, no matter how you try to word it.
The same goes for mutation. It's an errorous, rare occurance that has nothing to do with basic survival instincts of any kind. But when 1 of 334 billion cases looks like it benefits the species, suddenly it's labelled as evolution
Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. Fact remains that scientists have yet to see/observe evolution. Everything is only getting more complex and chaotic. There's no actual evolution.
| Juparis wrote: |
| First link: Waaaaaaaaaaay too long--can't read it at the moment |
Yeah, I figured that would be tough for most folk. That's why I added the 2nd link.
| Quote: |
|
Second link: I skimmed through it and saw some basic cases of sterile cross-breeding. How is that evolution? The most we can do is find cases of mutation and label them as evolution. However, evolution is supposedly the survival instincts of a species taking active--as in, intentional--action to change the genetics of that species to better adapt/suit to the evironment. |
No. Where did you get that from? I have never heard it proposed that evolution is an intentional act of a species. That doesn't even make sense. My understanding is that random mutations occur and beneficial ones take hold. To postulate intent sounds more like intelligent design, not evolution.
| Quote: |
|
Cross-breeding is not evolution, no matter how you try to word it. The same goes for mutation. . |
Please post a reference for this. I really think mutation is the basis for the theory. Could be wrong, so show me.
| Quote: |
| Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. Fact remains that scientists have yet to see/observe evolution. Everything is only getting more complex and chaotic. There's no actual evolution. |
The second ref I included, ex 3 and 4 seem to disprove your statement
| Quote: |
|
Example three: Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41 Example four: Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348 |
There is also the case of the moths in England changing coloration to adapt (through random mutations) to the soot of industrialzation. I can look up specific info if I have to, but we'll get there.
So, Please address the apparent misunderstanding about what evolution is and then the specific cases noted above.
Ok, I see the problem... A mere misunderstanding on my part.
From past atheists that I've talked to, they appeared to believe evolution was a specie's intentional adaptation to survive. Maybe it was their wording, but I got the impression that the evolutionary theory meant a species, with the instinct to live, will change its genetics to better suit the environment.
Come to think of it, I didn't engage in conversation with more than a handful of evolutionists. That, and the whole school kind of skews things a bit.
If what you say is true--that evolution is all about random mutations (and a prevailing gene descending from it)--then I can do nothing but agree that what I said was wrong. Evolution, in that case, does exist.
I apologize for the whole misunderstanding.
From past atheists that I've talked to, they appeared to believe evolution was a specie's intentional adaptation to survive. Maybe it was their wording, but I got the impression that the evolutionary theory meant a species, with the instinct to live, will change its genetics to better suit the environment.
Come to think of it, I didn't engage in conversation with more than a handful of evolutionists. That, and the whole school kind of skews things a bit.
If what you say is true--that evolution is all about random mutations (and a prevailing gene descending from it)--then I can do nothing but agree that what I said was wrong. Evolution, in that case, does exist.
I apologize for the whole misunderstanding.
Ah, I almost forgot. I meant to look into Cichlids more since I know there were well over 500 species in Africa, but very little more than that..
I know that the many colorations of cichlid are suppose to represent different species (or at least this is what I've been told), but I also know that colors are based on preferance. A female cichlid will mate with whatever color she prefers--no matter which specific specie she or the male belongs to. It was a television program, though, so I'm not sure I could find and link to the specific testing logs/sources. You'll just have to take my word for it, I guess..
And if you don't believe me, just start watching the National Geographic Channel, 24/7, and hope that they air the programe that I watched some weeks ago.
Anyway, cichlid colorings vary so widely with each offsprings (and also because they interbreed so easily). How do they know these new species didn't simply develop new colorings as a way to (for lack of a better term) "satisfy the ladies"?
Isolation alone won't satisfy me--cichlid genes are so widely varied you may think two sisters were two different species altogether. But I think that might be a bit narrow-minded, so I'll read anything you post.
I know that the many colorations of cichlid are suppose to represent different species (or at least this is what I've been told), but I also know that colors are based on preferance. A female cichlid will mate with whatever color she prefers--no matter which specific specie she or the male belongs to. It was a television program, though, so I'm not sure I could find and link to the specific testing logs/sources. You'll just have to take my word for it, I guess..
And if you don't believe me, just start watching the National Geographic Channel, 24/7, and hope that they air the programe that I watched some weeks ago.
Anyway, cichlid colorings vary so widely with each offsprings (and also because they interbreed so easily). How do they know these new species didn't simply develop new colorings as a way to (for lack of a better term) "satisfy the ladies"?
Isolation alone won't satisfy me--cichlid genes are so widely varied you may think two sisters were two different species altogether. But I think that might be a bit narrow-minded, so I'll read anything you post.
| Juparis wrote: |
| Evolution, in that case, does exist.
I apologize for the whole misunderstanding. |
I sure as heck hope you are being sarcastic!
I never wanted to change peoples minds about their beliefs, just to make them think about them. (makes think about mine, too)
Man, if we all agreed, it would be a very boring world, no?
It's getting late, Juparis. Can I buy ya a drink? We can debate the merits baseball over curling (I'll take curling).
Although this is kind of a silly question, I personally believe that religious people may be more likely to commit crimes, as they believe they can absolve themselves of their sins. Although athiests may be without morals, most of the ones I know have higher and more realistic moral standars than Christians. Instead of not letting their kids watch Harry Potter or play Magic Cards (a bit of an outdated reference, but not when I was in junior high) these people may have more pragmatic moral standards which reflect the need for a secure and moral society, which can in fact by abstract of any religious morals. Social morality versus devine morality...Hmm the fear of hell is a serious aspect on the christian side, although from a religious standpoint hell is just propaganda which has been created by Christian extremists and also ripped off from other older religion's view of a tortorous afterlife.
| Yantaal wrote: |
| Anyone who thinks people only have morals because of religion is short sited.
how can you think religion is the basis for everything people know whats good and whats bad. Religion- Killing is bad, taking away someones life against there will is naughty. Everyone else- Hmmmmm, killing is great, lets go kill some right now. Thankgod we aint religious. Thats a tre bon snobby view of religion. Besides doesnt the bible say Incest is wrong? Well, somewhere along the line Adam and Eve got lost if you now what im saying, he he hehe. The bible cant be the foundation for morals because the contradictions rule superior, that would also suggest if religion vanished then so would the worlds morals. |
I agree almost completely with everything in this post. The bible, is a giant book of fables, riddled with propaganda and nonsense, it is also the longest and next to Lord of the Rings, one of the greatest pieces of fiction ever written. This is probably because many of the events were based upon real events and also, a lot of the names were probably real people as well. But yeah, the bible is horribly contradictory, and while I'm not a huge fan of extremist muslims, at least the Koran has some well written poetry and some good philosophy. People pervert the intentions within their respective religions in order to suit their own selfish desires.
@HoboPelican
Well, even though it wasn't your intent, I realize I had a skewed (and narrow) viewpoint on evolution and it needed to be remedied. I really should look into these topics before I post, but I usually end up typing/talking before I give myself time to think. (Who really wants to read 20 pages before writing each post?). As for baseball/curling? I hate American baseball. All the players are vastly overpayed (yet some still try to threaten strikes), and there's really no contest anymore since the Yankees own the most money (equalling the better players). It's not a game anymore...
I'd be interested in hearing about curling though. What I see is limited to what's aired during the Olympics.
@dyrtyrice
You have some interesting points, but I'm curious which version of the Bible you're talking about. Could you list some of the contradictions you've found in the Bible? I'd be interested in clearing up what I can, though I know I don't read it nearly as much as others..
Also, do you really think that just because the general population is greedy, you should bash around the views and opinions of each religion as a whole? The people are to blame; not the religion or its foundation.
Well, even though it wasn't your intent, I realize I had a skewed (and narrow) viewpoint on evolution and it needed to be remedied. I really should look into these topics before I post, but I usually end up typing/talking before I give myself time to think. (Who really wants to read 20 pages before writing each post?). As for baseball/curling? I hate American baseball. All the players are vastly overpayed (yet some still try to threaten strikes), and there's really no contest anymore since the Yankees own the most money (equalling the better players). It's not a game anymore...
I'd be interested in hearing about curling though. What I see is limited to what's aired during the Olympics.
@dyrtyrice
You have some interesting points, but I'm curious which version of the Bible you're talking about. Could you list some of the contradictions you've found in the Bible? I'd be interested in clearing up what I can, though I know I don't read it nearly as much as others..
Also, do you really think that just because the general population is greedy, you should bash around the views and opinions of each religion as a whole? The people are to blame; not the religion or its foundation.
I'd say the odds of breaking a law are equal in both.
Morality, Ethical thinking and Civility are things mostly rooted in the mind by parents and siblings. People who choose a moral life may take two paths:
The religious path, where an external voice guides the internal voices in the stride for a ethical and moral life.
The atheistic path, where the non-believer rely on his own moral voice as his primary guide.
Both of these paths are still influenced by the Civil Code, the laws of the government. Zealots on both sides have equal ability and equal opportunity to break those laws when they conflict with their morality.
So where are the differences?
The differences are the results of the power of numbers. Most countries laws coincide with the leading religious group's views. That's not hard to do even in mixed religion societies as all the major religions agree on most points of morality.
Most atheists also agree with these general lines of morality, few would contest commandments like Thou Shall Not Kill, Thou Shall Not Steal.
But of course this is all a big generalization. There are no major movements in atheism, no central group representing the views of the people who have chosen this world view. Each atheist makes his or her own choices about morality. It makes it much easier to criticize them.
To the large religions and the people who follow them this is an alien and reckless notion. People who rely on a set, concrete and expansive set of rules, laws and implorments have a hard time understanding how the Moral Atheist can exist without these guides.
If the bible(s) is a gift from God to mankind, guiding believers by example to live a moral life (in order to please God and be accepted in Heaven), how can a mere human, alone, refuse this guide and say "I can show myself the way to be a good and just person". What hubris!
Do not mislead yourself. Atheists are not misguided rebels, lawless and morally corrupt. Often it is their sense of morality that compels them to renounce religion. Though not unified, atheists are decent people, who think and feel, who know right from wrong. Just like everyone else: Religious, Secular, Practicing or Not; They can break laws, they can make laws, and they can be completely correct in doing either.
Morality, Ethical thinking and Civility are things mostly rooted in the mind by parents and siblings. People who choose a moral life may take two paths:
The religious path, where an external voice guides the internal voices in the stride for a ethical and moral life.
The atheistic path, where the non-believer rely on his own moral voice as his primary guide.
Both of these paths are still influenced by the Civil Code, the laws of the government. Zealots on both sides have equal ability and equal opportunity to break those laws when they conflict with their morality.
So where are the differences?
The differences are the results of the power of numbers. Most countries laws coincide with the leading religious group's views. That's not hard to do even in mixed religion societies as all the major religions agree on most points of morality.
Most atheists also agree with these general lines of morality, few would contest commandments like Thou Shall Not Kill, Thou Shall Not Steal.
But of course this is all a big generalization. There are no major movements in atheism, no central group representing the views of the people who have chosen this world view. Each atheist makes his or her own choices about morality. It makes it much easier to criticize them.
To the large religions and the people who follow them this is an alien and reckless notion. People who rely on a set, concrete and expansive set of rules, laws and implorments have a hard time understanding how the Moral Atheist can exist without these guides.
If the bible(s) is a gift from God to mankind, guiding believers by example to live a moral life (in order to please God and be accepted in Heaven), how can a mere human, alone, refuse this guide and say "I can show myself the way to be a good and just person". What hubris!
Do not mislead yourself. Atheists are not misguided rebels, lawless and morally corrupt. Often it is their sense of morality that compels them to renounce religion. Though not unified, atheists are decent people, who think and feel, who know right from wrong. Just like everyone else: Religious, Secular, Practicing or Not; They can break laws, they can make laws, and they can be completely correct in doing either.
I'm not really a fan of Arthur C. Clarke, but sometimes he does something right - like saying this:
Religion, whether it be Christianity, Buddhism, Islam or Scientology, did not invent morality. Gorillas, baboons, all primates - and even to a lesser extent any other animal who's part of a group - has some sense of morality without any notion (that we know of) of religion. Why? Because it's the very rational - maybe even evolutionary - basis of existing as a group. If chimpansees had to wait for religion to teach them not to kill each other on a whim, they'd be extinct a loooong time ago. Animals survive better as a group, and an animal in a group survives better if it gets along with the rest of the group.
Just about every religion, from Buddhism to the religion of the Cherokee (the latter in spite of having no written guidelines and no notion of heaven or hell) agrees with over half of the decalogue (the parts that aren't about a childish attention freak of a God), in spite of originating in very different societies in very different corners of the world, and worshipping very different gods.
And yet, other parts of our morality is very different - even within Christian societies. Morality is a relative notion, not an absolute. Nothing kept the (up until then Christian) nazis from finding morality in the slaughter of millions. Nothing keeps Christian Americans from finding homosexuality amoral, while I find that very judgment itself amoral.
Most people in modern society find the equal treatment of men and women an important part of their morality, and yet, the majority of the bible (and most certainly the OT) describes women as men's property (with a God who repeatedly endorses rape during wartime and encourages to kill rape victims - and the rapist for violating another man's property)...
But what reading the bible - or Torah, and probably lots of other religious scriptures - certainly does emphasize, are the different sets of moral guidelines that apply to people inside your group and outside. That the ten commandments don't apply quite as much to people outside your religion. This ingroup/outgroup mentality wasn't invented by religion either, but religion certainly didn't help.
Thinking that religion created morality is naive black/white thinking to me, and as Clarke mentioned, a tragedy - and, seeing the religious fundamentalists of today, potentially a very very dangerous idea.
| Arthur C. Clarke wrote: |
| The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. |
Religion, whether it be Christianity, Buddhism, Islam or Scientology, did not invent morality. Gorillas, baboons, all primates - and even to a lesser extent any other animal who's part of a group - has some sense of morality without any notion (that we know of) of religion. Why? Because it's the very rational - maybe even evolutionary - basis of existing as a group. If chimpansees had to wait for religion to teach them not to kill each other on a whim, they'd be extinct a loooong time ago. Animals survive better as a group, and an animal in a group survives better if it gets along with the rest of the group.
Just about every religion, from Buddhism to the religion of the Cherokee (the latter in spite of having no written guidelines and no notion of heaven or hell) agrees with over half of the decalogue (the parts that aren't about a childish attention freak of a God
), in spite of originating in very different societies in very different corners of the world, and worshipping very different gods.
And yet, other parts of our morality is very different - even within Christian societies. Morality is a relative notion, not an absolute. Nothing kept the (up until then Christian) nazis from finding morality in the slaughter of millions. Nothing keeps Christian Americans from finding homosexuality amoral, while I find that very judgment itself amoral.
Most people in modern society find the equal treatment of men and women an important part of their morality, and yet, the majority of the bible (and most certainly the OT) describes women as men's property (with a God who repeatedly endorses rape during wartime and encourages to kill rape victims - and the rapist for violating another man's property)...
But what reading the bible - or Torah, and probably lots of other religious scriptures - certainly does emphasize, are the different sets of moral guidelines that apply to people inside your group and outside. That the ten commandments don't apply quite as much to people outside your religion. This ingroup/outgroup mentality wasn't invented by religion either, but religion certainly didn't help.
Thinking that religion created morality is naive black/white thinking to me, and as Clarke mentioned, a tragedy - and, seeing the religious fundamentalists of today, potentially a very very dangerous idea.
Just a few points on Kaneda's post...
Have you ever considered that animals may be immoral? Science has yet to prove anything other than instinct, which itself is an abstract compromise to a real answer in my opinion. How do we know animals really think? If they are incapable of sinning, then it would be simple logic to conclude they are immoral. Unless you have an alternate point of view? I'm always reading.
Secondly, I'd like to know which version of the Bible you're reading, and where it encourages the idea of women as property, rapes, and the death of rape victims. If you don't mind, of course. I think you should also give some consideration to the culture of that area and in that time. Even today, there are some cultures that include kidnapping/raping a young woman before marrying her. It's just the culture,, and not necessarily God's intended procession of events.
Lastly, ('cause I'm getting tired of typing,) what are you opinions on the Ten Commandments? Other than the first and third, I don't see how the other commandments shouldn't be respected by everyone. I wouldn't want it forcefully imposed, but would you agree that they do support/teach high morals? I have yet to see an "hijacking" here, but maybe I'm just mistinterpreting the quote..
Have you ever considered that animals may be immoral? Science has yet to prove anything other than instinct, which itself is an abstract compromise to a real answer in my opinion. How do we know animals really think? If they are incapable of sinning, then it would be simple logic to conclude they are immoral. Unless you have an alternate point of view? I'm always reading.
Secondly, I'd like to know which version of the Bible you're reading, and where it encourages the idea of women as property, rapes, and the death of rape victims. If you don't mind, of course.
I think you should also give some consideration to the culture of that area and in that time. Even today, there are some cultures that include kidnapping/raping a young woman before marrying her. It's just the culture,, and not necessarily God's intended procession of events.
Lastly, ('cause I'm getting tired of typing,) what are you opinions on the Ten Commandments? Other than the first and third, I don't see how the other commandments shouldn't be respected by everyone. I wouldn't want it forcefully imposed, but would you agree that they do support/teach high morals? I have yet to see an "hijacking" here, but maybe I'm just mistinterpreting the quote..
| Juparis wrote: |
| Have you ever considered that animals may be immoral? |
Yes, I've even believed it. But the answer I've reached was in the post you replied to. Have you ever considered that they may not be?
I know of no people who've actually worked with primates who don't think ("know", if you ask them, because "isn't it obvious?") that gorillas, chimpanzees etc. have thought patterns, morality and emotions very akin to our own.
Morality probably being the less important (as in, more widespread) of these, since for decades, scientists have noticed that animals, whether it be babboons, lions, wolves or whatever group animal follow a group mentality that points very explicitly at morals - morals that may be different from ours, yes, because morals are as different between species as they are between cultures.
Nevertheless, many experiments have been made - including one, where macaque monkeys were shown they'd get food by pulling a string hanging from the roof. After the monkey had learned to use this string, the scientists modified it to also elecroshock another macaque monkey - in plain sight to the macaque pulling the string.
In 75-87% of the cases - no matter the gender or social status within the group of the electrocuted monkey, i.e., even when the monkey "at the right end of the string" had no repercussions to fear - after seeing the consequence of this "new string", the other monkey would stop pulling the string. As far as I recall, one monkey starved itself for weeks rather than pulling that string. And monkeys who had themselves been at the other end of the string, would be even less likely to pull it on another.
Now, who show more morality here - the monkeys or the scientists?
I believe you can find the experiment recounted in "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" - Google it - along with many other examples of the same point. Or take a look at the works of Frans de Waal.
| Quote: |
| Science has yet to prove anything other than instinct, which itself is an abstract compromise to a real answer in my opinion. How do we know animals really think? |
The only way we know other humans do. We observe. As primatologists have done for decades. Ask them, and you'll get a very clear answer.
| Quote: |
| If they are incapable of sinning, then it would be simple logic to conclude they are immoral. Unless you have an alternate point of view? I'm always reading. |
As far as I recall, I never said they were incapable of sinning. Wouldn't say so, because I do not believe in a concept of sin. Sin is an arbitrary selection of what the authority fears at the moment and in my view has nothing to do with morality.
| Quote: |
| Secondly, I'd like to know which version of the Bible you're reading, and where it encourages the idea of women as property, rapes, and the death of rape victims. If you don't mind, of course. |
Thankfully, there's only one Danish version. Interestingly, it says pretty much exactly the same as the modern English versions I've checked (New International, New Revised Standard, New American and a few others). Here, the New International:
| Deuteronomy 22 wrote: |
| If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. |
In essence, she dies because she didn't protect her husband's property, and he dies because he violated it. Deuteronomy, especially, is filled with this stuff.
| 2 Samuel 12 wrote: |
| This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' |
| Zecheriah 14 wrote: |
| A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you. I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. |
| Numbers 21 wrote: |
| Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle."Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. |
Accomplice to rape, much? Just a few. Could go on, but this is getting long...
| Quote: |
| I think you should also give some consideration to the culture of that area and in that time. |
I do. If Christians (and religious people in general) did that, things would be so much easier. Alas, a large percentage of them... don't. The bible is the revealed and eternal word of God, not the writings of a culture of an area and a time.
| Quote: |
| Lastly, ('cause I'm getting tired of typing,) what are you opinions on the Ten Commandments? Other than the first and third, I don't see how the other commandments shouldn't be respected by everyone. |
It should be very clear from what I said above, what my opinions are. Over half of the ten commandments are plain, common sense. It's should be logic to anyone who must function in a social group. The first four are God-as-attention-freak
. The latter six I don't know anyone who'd disagree with, which is the whole point.
And the first and third only? Unless your numbering is different... You should never expect me to "keep the Sabbath holy" (4th) or "have no other gods" (2nd) - well, the latter I'll comply with, for my own reasons...
| Quote: |
| I have yet to see an "hijacking" here, but maybe I'm just mistinterpreting the quote.. |
The hijacking is what you - and countless religious people - are doing. Insisting that religion invented morality. Believing that it did is the one reason why people in this thread can keep mentioning the atrocities commited in the name of a god.
Because if you believe religion invented morality, then it doesn't take much to believe it's free to reinvent it. Which terrorists, crusaders, the inquisition, Christian fundamentalists etc. have utilised throughout history.
Just a though, isnt Evolution and Mutation one and the same.
A certain "Link" ina species will mutate, giving maybe something better, maybve something worse. If is it is better, it will propser, giving its children that the characteristic, then so on and so on.
If it is a bad mutation, it wil die out quickly and it will be like nothing even happened.
Thats how we evolve, with mutations, trial and error
A certain "Link" ina species will mutate, giving maybe something better, maybve something worse. If is it is better, it will propser, giving its children that the characteristic, then so on and so on.
If it is a bad mutation, it wil die out quickly and it will be like nothing even happened.
Thats how we evolve, with mutations, trial and error
| Yantaal wrote: |
| Just a though, isnt Evolution and Mutation one and the same.
A certain "Link" ina species will mutate, giving maybe something better, maybve something worse. If is it is better, it will propser, giving its children that the characteristic, then so on and so on. If it is a bad mutation, it wil die out quickly and it will be like nothing even happened. Thats how we evolve, with mutations, trial and error |
I don't know if you're referring to me or not, but I now realize the full situation. I had a previous connotation that evolution was a specie's intended drive to survive. I now know that evolution and mutation are pretty much the same--sorry if I confused anyone else with my (already-)confusing posts.
| Kaneda wrote: |
| Yes, I've even believed it. But the answer I've reached was in the post you replied to. Have you ever considered that they may not be? I know of no people who've actually worked with primates who don't think ("know", if you ask them, because "isn't it obvious?") that gorillas, chimpanzees etc. have thought patterns, morality and emotions very akin to our own. |
I use to believe animals were capable of sin--I, like yourself, have reached a decision on my own beliefs. I'm sure animals are capable of emotions, and many have the capacity for thought. But morality? Animals never rebelled against God, and as far as I'm concerned, never sinned (it would be too long for me to explain how I got from one side of the spectrum to the other
). By my conclusion of never sinning, there is thus no morality because there is no sin. A cheap example: If there is one apple, and no orange, who needs a sign to say "Don't take the orange!"
I see this is based on our beliefs. Since you do not believe in God, you might not see how animals never sinned the way I do (especially considering you don't believe in "sin"). But that's fine; I'm not trying to convert anyone.. Just a little fun discussing things.
| Quote: |
| The only way we know other humans do. We observe. As primatologists have done for decades. Ask them, and you'll get a very clear answer. |
"I think, therefore I am," correct? Thus it is impossible to literally prove thought processes in anyone else. This could all be a simulation of your or my mind. Who knows...
Anyway, though it is reasonable to observe, I can't say I'd agree that, just through observing actions, we can determine something such as morality. Evidence is not proof, at least in my opinion..
| Quote: |
| As far as I recall, I never said they were incapable of sinning. Wouldn't say so, because I do not believe in a concept of sin. Sin is an arbitrary selection of what the authority fears at the moment and in my view has nothing to do with morality. |
The incapable of sinning is my whole deal there.. I was bringing up a new point, not trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry if that's the impression I gave...
It's somewhat humorous to think, that I should believe the exact opposite--to me, sin has everything to do with morals--but that I can still agree with you.
In my own definition (not any book's), I see "sin" as an action in defiance (whether intended so or not) against the fair rights/good morals that should be maintained. I'm not sure if I worded that right, but hopefully you ge the picture; I still believe in sin.
| Quote: | ||
Thankfully, there's only one Danish version. Interestingly, it says pretty much exactly the same as the modern English versions I've checked (New International, New Revised Standard, New American and a few others). Here, the New International:
In essence, she dies because she didn't protect her husband's property, and he dies because he violated it. Deuteronomy, especially, is filled with this stuff. |
First and foremost: All these passages you cited are of the Old Testament, and no longer apply. They (Deuteronomy more than any other) were written in a completely different time and culture, possily in a location less-religious than now (though I find that hard to believe).. So I continue...
From the Deuteronomy passage: I see no attributes pertaining to a woman as property. That's all how we interpret the original words, though.. The way I see it, the woman is killed because she failed to even try to stop the man from sinning--just as we are not to sin, it is in our best interest to stop others from sinning. Perhaps she struggled, but at the time, there were more resources than just physically struggling. Then, of course, the violator dies because he failed to prevent himself from sinning.
| 2 Samuel 12 wrote: |
| This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' |
Ah, tis a shame: This is a very complex piece of symbolism, but is poorly translated. Hebrew isn't the easiest language to translate (including the connotations, anyway). If you read it literally, it sounds harsh (then again, it is what we all deserve), but there's much more open to individual interpretation. I wouldn't want to impose my own biased opinion here, though.
| Zecheriah 14 wrote: |
| A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you. I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. |
A prophecy, if memory serves, that was already fulfilled. Here the LORD (in this context meaning ruler/master of all) refers to himself, but actually means that he will be on the side of their enemies. He himself is not going to come down and destroy the city. Rather, he has left those people and will allow the enemies to plunder everything, because of what his people did. I'm sure someone else would be able to explain the full situation better than I, though..
| Numbers 21 wrote: |
| Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle."Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. |
Very dependent on the time, culture, and situation, I remind you.
At that specific time, the LORD's people were the few believers that existed in that area. He would have no tolerance for others to corrupt his people--in this case, through sex. But how can a virgin have corrupted a man through sex? She has not had sex, and is spared. I don't know the full situation in this passage, though..
| Quote: |
|
Accomplice to rape, much? Just a few. Could go on, but this is getting long... |
Accomplice? No, I wouldn't say so. He allows it happen, though, as a lesson to his faltering people. He is only with those that truely believe in him, and will protect those people from falling to sin like the rest of the world. I could go on too, assuming I recognize/remember the context of each passage, but I agree: getting long.
| Quote: |
| I do. If Christians (and religious people in general) did that, things would be so much easier. Alas, a large percentage of them... don't. The bible is the revealed and eternal word of God, not the writings of a culture of an area and a time. |
This may be just a personal viewpoint, but the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Not meant to be a story or history book, it teaches all we need to know (and then some). However, it was written by several men, and not God himself. I guess men are the publishers, where God is the author in this case. But where am I going with this? I forgot...
I try to consider even the impossible, and know many that would do the same. But I think you're right there--there should be more consideration by the devout people. Conservative Christians can be the most frustrating, from what I've learned. :sigh: Perhaps the only reason I'm able to change my beliefs so much is because I'm not devout enough.
| Quote: |
|
It should be very clear from what I said above, what my opinions are. Over half of the ten commandments are plain, common sense. It's should be logic to anyone who must function in a social group. The first four are God-as-attention-freak . The latter six I don't know anyone who'd disagree with, which is the whole point.
And the first and third only? Unless your numbering is different... You should never expect me to "keep the Sabbath holy" (4th) or "have no other gods" (2nd) - well, the latter I'll comply with, for my own reasons... |
Sorry, I meant the first through the third, but typed out "and" instead, for some reason. Oh, and yes, our numberings are different. It is our 9th and 10th commandments that look the same--two in your first four (I'm not sure which exactly) are commonly taught as one of the first in my set.. Then again, the original scriptures don't specifically point out 10 commandments, so nobody's wrong. It's just easiest to group them into 10, instead of keeping vague ideas/descriptions of what's wrong in our minds..
I'm glad we agree that they (the last half) are common sense.
| Quote: |
| The hijacking is what you - and countless religious people - are doing. Insisting that religion invented morality. Believing that it did is the one reason why people in this thread can keep mentioning the atrocities commited in the name of a god.
Because if you believe religion invented morality, then it doesn't take much to believe it's free to reinvent it. Which terrorists, crusaders, the inquisition, Christian fundamentalists etc. have utilised throughout history. |
Well I'm sorry I offended you, since that what it seems I inadvertently did. I have contemplated this topic a lot, and I think I should stop saying religion invented morals. By my beliefs, I should be saying humans did, since we are the ones that sinned in the first place. Religion only came about because of sin--we needed to be saved--but I can understand that it may not have created morals. Rather, it organizes and lists them in a definite manner. Otherwise, everyone would only have a blurry view on what's really good, which itself would be open to interpretation. I think religion definitely clarifies morals a bit..
Here, I admit I was wrong. Fighting the wrong war, I now see.
Still, I'm convinced that morals would not be as high as they are without any religion. Anyone want to discuss that point now to keep things going? If you need to believe in a god to stop you commiting crimes then it will only be a temporary state.
No. May be even the opposite is true. Many crimes are religiously motivated.
| Juparis wrote: |
| By my conclusion of never sinning, there is thus no morality because there is no sin. A cheap example: If there is one apple, and no orange, who needs a sign to say "Don't take the orange!" |
That's where differences in definition enter. I don't base morality on religion - but my definition doesn't exclude religion's viewpoint either. Morality: Distinguishing between "right" and "wrong". "Sin" doesn't need to enter into it.
| Quote: |
| "I think, therefore I am," correct? |
Incorrect, but that's beside the point
| Quote: |
| Thus it is impossible to literally prove thought processes in anyone else. This could all be a simulation of your or my mind. |
We don't need to take it to Descartian levels. If we do need to take it to an extreme, the "western" viewpoint when it came to Africans only 150 years ago was that they had no morality, no emotions, they were "just animals" (but closer related to humans than most). How did they (well, most of them, discounting misguided racist people) figure out they were wrong? By observing them. In what other way could they possibly come to the true (I hope you agree
) conclusion that just because these people had a different language, a different culture, and a different skin colour didn't mean they weren't human?
I'm not saying animals = humans, here. Far from it. But the fact is, the human mind isn't quite as unique as we like to believe. And the way we know that is the same way these people figured out that Africans were people too. All you can do is observe and make your conclusions based on that.
| Quote: |
| Evidence is not proof, at least in my opinion.. |
I've learned from mistakes made years ago, and will never go into a discussion of proof and evidence with a Christian
| Quote: |
| First and foremost: All these passages you cited are of the Old Testament, and no longer apply. |
The world would be so much better if all Christians thought like you
As far as I'm aware, God wasn't fired and replaced between OT and NT. Christ is speaking of (and is himself) the same entity (well, trinity).
| Quote: |
| Ah, tis a shame: This is a very complex piece of symbolism, but is poorly translated. |
Indeed, but I chose New International from the beginning and - to avoid discussions about picking and choosing from different translations - I stuck with it. The Danish translation and most of the English ones I've read, are much more graphic, but in the end, they all amount to the same. Strange that's it's so hard to translate (I don't disagree with that), but a totally independent Danish translation amounts to the exact same thing. But let's put the rape issue aside - just needed to document my claim. There's no accounting for beliefs - I'll still think my own thoughts about the value of the Jewish/Christian god, and you yours, I'm sure.
But in the end, my problem isn't what the bible actually says, in hebrew or greek. 98% of Christians don't know what it actually says. They base their beliefs on a translation in their own language which is very much an interpretation. That's the Christianity we're dealing with. I can go and read the torah in the original language or the new testament in ancient greek - but it wouldn't tell me much about Christians today.
We're now dealing with a religion which is factored into different groups who base their beliefs on (hold on) random interpretations of semi-random translations of a randomly selected anthology of bits and pieces of text chosen from a wide variety of candidates for very specific reasons (by men) 1600 to 2500 years ago. These texts had already been copied and most likely rewritten and modified before they were even selected.
| Quote: |
| Conservative Christians can be the most frustrating, from what I've learned. :sigh: Perhaps the only reason I'm able to change my beliefs so much is because I'm not devout enough. |
Which I'll say is a very very good thing. But that shouldn't surprise you. Being devout at all is more than enough.
| Quote: |
| Well I'm sorry I offended you, since that what it seems I inadvertently did. |
It's extremely hard to offend me. The idea of "sinful" images, words, actions, whatever obviously can't offend me. Amoral actions (like killing, cheating etc.) by my own standards (to get back on topic) will make me sad, but not offended. Since I'm quite happy with my life and myself, personal attacks don't bother me (the few times they've occured). Fundamentalist/conservative and/or missionary religious people will annoy me at most - and you're neither. And in the end, I see nothing in your posts that's even remotely offensive. So, sorry if some wording made it seem otherwise. You'll have to try a lot harder
| Quote: |
| Rather, it organizes and lists them in a definite manner. Otherwise, everyone would only have a blurry view on what's really good, which itself would be open to interpretation. I think religion definitely clarifies morals a bit.. [...] Still, I'm convinced that morals would not be as high as they are without any religion. |
I'll just keep disagreeing
| Kaneda wrote: |
|
That's where differences in definition enter. I don't base morality on religion - but my definition doesn't exclude religion's viewpoint either. Morality: Distinguishing between "right" and "wrong". "Sin" doesn't need to enter into it. |
I see what you mean now; it makes sense. I guess I need a new dictionary.
| Kaneda wrote: | ||
Incorrect, but that's beside the point |
Ooh, now you got me curious.. How so?
I guess I could see it as a type of programming--we think we have free will, that we know ourselves, etc, but this is just a complex programming? Please, explain (unless this is too far off topic), you got me curious.
| Kaneda wrote: |
|
We don't need to take it to Descartian levels. If we do need to take it to an extreme, the "western" viewpoint when it came to Africans only 150 years ago was that they had no morality, no emotions, they were "just animals" (but closer related to humans than most). How did they (well, most of them, discounting misguided racist people) figure out they were wrong? By observing them. In what other way could they possibly come to the true (I hope you agree ) conclusion that just because these people had a different language, a different culture, and a different skin colour didn't mean they weren't human?
I'm not saying animals = humans, here. Far from it. But the fact is, the human mind isn't quite as unique as we like to believe. And the way we know that is the same way these people figured out that Africans were people too. All you can do is observe and make your conclusions based on that. |
I don't think I every thought about it that way--it seems valid enough, though. I suppose I'd agree, but I can't just admit defeat yet. I'm too stubborn for that.
I'll just say this: we don't know for sure; evidence isn't proof, but if that's all we got...
| Quote: |
| I've learned from mistakes made years ago, and will never go into a discussion of proof and evidence with a Christian |
If you mean the existence of God/Christ, I can say that there is an absence of sufficient proof, by today's standards. Then again, that could just play into the "God is separating himself with us; the end is near" deal. I think that he would have been a much larger influence before, but now the proof is just gone. There's evidence, but that's not proof, which I understand. I have, in the past, considered, "What if I'm wrong? What's to say I'm doing the right thing, if this book is taken out of the equation?" However, I have my own list of experiences/close calls to say I believe in him, or at least some guiding force that wants me to live.
| Quote: |
|
The world would be so much better if all Christians thought like you As far as I'm aware, God wasn't fired and replaced between OT and NT. Christ is speaking of (and is himself) the same entity (well, trinity).
|
Thanks for the complement; I appreciate it. I agree that God wasn't just fired and/or replaced. As I understand it, these were Old Ceremonial laws that existed only because Christ had not yet entered the world. After this event (I could be wrong; I'm not entirely sure where the mark lies), there was no need since our sins have already been atoned for. Interpretation varies on that, so I'll have to remind you this is just my opinion/belief.
| Quote: |
| But in the end, my problem isn't what the bible actually says, in hebrew or greek. 98% of Christians don't know what it actually says. They base their beliefs on a translation in their own language which is very much an interpretation. That's the Christianity we're dealing with. I can go and read the torah in the original language or the new testament in ancient greek - but it wouldn't tell me much about Christians today.
We're now dealing with a religion which is factored into different groups who base their beliefs on (hold on) random interpretations of semi-random translations of a randomly selected anthology of bits and pieces of text chosen from a wide variety of candidates for very specific reasons (by men) 1600 to 2500 years ago. These texts had already been copied and most likely rewritten and modified before they were even selected. |
I gotta say, that's very true.. I myself would love to learn Hebrew, read the texts, and come to my faith on my own--without simply believing it because I was raised that way. However, I've heard enough from those that have read some of the original texts to agree with current teachings. Additionally, I think it's a bit selfish of me to say "I came to faith on my own!" At least, it would create a sense of pride I'm sure I don't want (since I already dislike arrogant people more than a bee sting). It's sufficient for me, even if that is being a bit shallow...
| Quote: |
|
Which I'll say is a very very good thing. But that shouldn't surprise you. Being devout at all is more than enough. |
Is this another complement? Wow, this is just making my day! Thanks! The school I attend (regretfully) is a Lutheran facility with ties to many conservative churches. Thus there is a large influence and desire to keep things the way they are; to just accept everything as truth. So many of my friends just take everything they hear as truth, a sort of "blind faith" in my opinion. I'm trying to keep my mind open, but probably not as open as I should.
| Quote: |
| It's extremely hard to offend me. The idea of "sinful" images, words, actions, whatever obviously can't offend me. Amoral actions (like killing, cheating etc.) by my own standards (to get back on topic) will make me sad, but not offended. Since I'm quite happy with my life and myself, personal attacks don't bother me (the few times they've occured). Fundamentalist/conservative and/or missionary religious people will annoy me at most - and you're neither. And in the end, I see nothing in your posts that's even remotely offensive. So, sorry if some wording made it seem otherwise. You'll have to try a lot harder |
I'm glad to hear you weren't offended. I think I just misinterpreted some of the strong wording you used. I can't say for sure (since it always depends on the exact situation), but I think I'd only be offended if someone intentionally attacked my family/heritage/religion with rash or inconsiderate wording. Otherwise, I'll try and see it from the other person's point of view and have fun debating whatever subject came up.
| Quote: |
| I'll just keep disagreeing |
Looks like neither of us will be bored for a while.
I must say I'm happy to find people willing to engage in a fair debate on these forums. On past forums, topics regarding religion are usually deleted (because people are too sensitive), or degrade into nothing but name-calling and "your mother" references (because people are too insensitive). Here, however, it seems to be the perfect medium.
| Juparis wrote: |
| I see what you mean now; it makes sense. I guess I need a new dictionary. |
Like HoboPelican in the discussion of evolution, I'd hope your definition doesn't need replacement just because I disagree. Even more so, since this isn't a matter of physical science.
| Quote: | ||||
Ooh, now you got me curious.. How so? |
It was mostly an inside semi-joke. And yes, it's rather far off topic, but I'm not good at being brief, so let's call this an intermezzo (and beware, the following may include relatively "weird" stuff)...
I don't really bother with Descartes. There are certain philosophical questions that I decided a long time ago to just ignore, the main one being cogito ergo sum. I know the implications of it are true; I know from experience how very random our perception of "facts of reality" is and how easily that perception can be fundamentally changed; I've experienced the colour orange as what you'd normally call a sound or a pure emotion or a tactile sensation - or something you can't even put into words. And I know how time coming to an absolute dead stop feels - or being in two places at the same time - without ever having been "crazy" as such
I could go into a lot of discussion about how, at the end of a long reflection on these (disclaimer: illegal and dangerous and - to some people - amoral) experiences, I came to the conclusion that social interaction is probably the one really important aspect of life (supplemented by openness as in learning, experiencing, trying as much as possible - within morality, to return to that), but let's get back to Descartes.
So, I know he's basically right. But I'm not sure he takes it far enough. It might be more accurate to say "Thinking is therefore thinking is". Not sure if it's justified to assume there's any "I" to do the thinking. Several people have described or talked of mystical transcendence, abandon of self-awareness, nirvana etc. Knowing what a strange thing the mind is, I see no reason to doubt that people have had such experiences. But assuming that you can have such an experience, and "return" from it - as in, "reclaim your self" - if you remember the experience, some mind process must have been going on during it.
That said, I've come to the conclusion that all this, again, is irrelevant. In popular terms, I don't care if we live in the Matrix. Doesn't matter what "is", what matters is what we perceive. I don't long for a "better place" - whether it be Heaven or whatever. I'm perfectly happy with exploring this wondrous world, with all its joys and sorrows and "limitations". And since that makes this life more important than anything - to get back to the morality issue - it also makes the lives of others more important than anything. That's where morality stems from, to me.
Phew.
| Quote: |
| I don't think I every thought about it that way--it seems valid enough, though. I suppose I'd agree, but I can't just admit defeat yet. I'm too stubborn for that. I'll just say this: we don't know for sure; evidence isn't proof, but if that's all we got... |
There you have it
| Quote: |
| If you mean the existence of God/Christ, I can say that there is an absence of sufficient proof, by today's standards. Then again, that could just play into the "God is separating himself with us; the end is near" deal. I think that he would have been a much larger influence before, but now the proof is just gone. |
Dave McKean, in the one graphic novel everyone should read, "Cages", wrote a very telling creation myth, which I'll just quote the ending of (the context really requires to read it all):
| Dave McKean wrote: |
| God fled.
The love He held for His creations grew in strength, even as places to hide became further and fewer. Finally, as man's pristine weapons drew blood, God was driven away from His world, leaving it a bruised and bloodied thing, smeared red onto the blackness behind it, and leaving man utterly and perfectly alone. |
McKean does a wonderful job writing a book that manages to deal with life, death, love, sex, hate, art and everything inbetween in 500 pages filled with beautiful imagery.
Another very very essential book is Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" (known as "The atheist's handbook" among misguided conservative Christians). Introduced to me recently by my girlfriend, it's one of those children's books that no children read. I found it reflected a lot of my view of the world - including the idea of "sin". And it supplies a very different view on God, Lucifer and - most especially - the Fall. A must-read.
| Quote: |
| However, I have my own list of experiences/close calls to say I believe in him, or at least some guiding force that wants me to live. |
I have more close calls than most people too, most caused by my own recklessness. Guess I just chose another explanation for me still being alive
| Quote: |
| I agree that God wasn't just fired and/or replaced. As I understand it, these were Old Ceremonial laws that existed only because Christ had not yet entered the world. After this event (I could be wrong; I'm not entirely sure where the mark lies), there was no need since our sins have already been atoned for. |
There's one thing I've never thought of
Still, the need for a god to be vengeful and in so much need of attention has always seemed odd to me.
| Quote: |
| Additionally, I think it's a bit selfish of me to say "I came to faith on my own!" At least, it would create a sense of pride I'm sure I don't want (since I already dislike arrogant people more than a bee sting). It's sufficient for me, even if that is being a bit shallow... |
That can really only be arrogant, if you don't believe in free will. Also, any atheist, I'm sure, will be regarded as arrogant by a devout Christian (but then, I'm also considered arrogant by non-religious people - come to think of it, my girlfriend thinks I'm arrogant
)
| Quote: |
| Is this another complement? Wow, this is just making my day! |
Well, I've had discussions with too many people stuck in their religion.
And been "sent to hell" for everything from my "attitude" to my "amoral actions"/"sinning" to my choice of motorcycles as a mode of transportation
While most Danes (around 85%) are born Christians by name (and I'm still a member of - and pay to - the People's Church of Denmark (which means I'm an Evangelical Lutheran Protestant by name)), most practicing Christians (5%) aren't really noticeable here, but those who are, tend to be very conservative. So, it's always great to have a discussion with someone who's willing to question his beliefs.
| Quote: |
| I'm glad to hear you weren't offended. I think I just misinterpreted some of the strong wording you used. |
My arrogance shining through...
| Quote: |
| On past forums, topics regarding religion are usually deleted (because people are too sensitive), or degrade into nothing but name-calling and "your mother" references (because people are too insensitive). Here, however, it seems to be the perfect medium. |
I actually wondered if "God as a childish attention freak" in one of my previous posts was out of line. Guess it wasn't (so I just mentioned it again here), or maybe it got buried in my always overlong posts.
Overlong, this one not being an exception...
sweet, a good conversation where christians aren't damning non-christians to hell and where the non-christians aren't calling the christians morons. I'm gonna have to go on record as saying that this thread is becoming a glimpse into the kingdom of heaven. (maybe thats because I haven't really participated in it )
I almost bought that today too, but I bought a video game instead, dang. I might have to go back to the store within the next few days.
Oh man, if riding a harley is a sin worthy of heal, most of my family is screwed. And I'm about 1/4 screwed (saving up for my first bike).
Ok this has been a huge hi-jack so far, time for something with some UMPHH.
Personally, I dont think there will be any scientific proof of God's existence until we all come face to face with him.
I don't think God wants people to have absolute, irrefutable, scientific proof that he exists.
"Duby, are you crazy?" you might ask, "why wouldn't God want there to be absolute proof he exists?" Well I'll tell you why I think that way. (sorry I'm a bit tired and goofy right now, I promise thats the only time I'll do that in this post).
I fully believe that God wants us to be engaging with him and his message. That why Jesus spoke in parables. He's looking for people who will think about what is being said. He was looking for followers, not people who think they have absolutely everything figured out. If you want to have an on-going relationship with someone, you don't just sit down and give absolute facts. You spend time with them, you ask them about thier story, and you tell them your story, and your two stories collide and mix together. In other words, you engage with each other. Thats what parables do, and thats what a lack of absolute proof forces us to do.
Hope that all made sense, like I said I'm a bit sleepy, and its time for me to get to bed.
Take care guys
)
| Kaneda wrote: |
| Dave McKean, in the one graphic novel everyone should read, "Cages", wrote a very telling creation myth, which I'll just quote the ending of (the context really requires to read it all) |
I almost bought that today too, but I bought a video game instead, dang. I might have to go back to the store within the next few days.
| Kaneda wrote: |
| Well, I've had discussions with too many people stuck in their religion. Smile And been "sent to hell" for everything from my "attitude" to my "amoral actions"/"sinning" to my choice of motorcycles as a mode of transportation Wink |
Oh man, if riding a harley is a sin worthy of heal, most of my family is screwed. And I'm about 1/4 screwed (saving up for my first bike).
Ok this has been a huge hi-jack so far, time for something with some UMPHH.
| Judapris wrote: |
| If you mean the existence of God/Christ, I can say that there is an absence of sufficient proof, by today's standards. Then again, that could just play into the "God is separating himself with us; the end is near" deal. |
Personally, I dont think there will be any scientific proof of God's existence until we all come face to face with him.
I don't think God wants people to have absolute, irrefutable, scientific proof that he exists.
"Duby, are you crazy?" you might ask, "why wouldn't God want there to be absolute proof he exists?" Well I'll tell you why I think that way. (sorry I'm a bit tired and goofy right now, I promise thats the only time I'll do that in this post).
I fully believe that God wants us to be engaging with him and his message. That why Jesus spoke in parables. He's looking for people who will think about what is being said. He was looking for followers, not people who think they have absolutely everything figured out. If you want to have an on-going relationship with someone, you don't just sit down and give absolute facts. You spend time with them, you ask them about thier story, and you tell them your story, and your two stories collide and mix together. In other words, you engage with each other. Thats what parables do, and thats what a lack of absolute proof forces us to do.
Hope that all made sense, like I said I'm a bit sleepy, and its time for me to get to bed.
Take care guys
read my sig
i'm not a religious person
i don't even believe a god of any kind or religion exists.
alot of the morality issues in the bible is just common sense, and most are enforced by law, just because the bible mentions them does not make them any special.
i'm sure you would of watched some documentaries, whenever they show a pack of animals, they all have specific roles, and behave in a certain way that will benifit the group, and those that misbehave are often punished or expelled from the pack, with a few examples the rest of the pack will less likely to misbehave.
hmmm, i wonder if those animals have read the bible, or have a religion of their own, since they are now behaving more morally.
i'm not a religious person
i don't even believe a god of any kind or religion exists.
alot of the morality issues in the bible is just common sense, and most are enforced by law, just because the bible mentions them does not make them any special.
i'm sure you would of watched some documentaries, whenever they show a pack of animals, they all have specific roles, and behave in a certain way that will benifit the group, and those that misbehave are often punished or expelled from the pack, with a few examples the rest of the pack will less likely to misbehave.
hmmm, i wonder if those animals have read the bible, or have a religion of their own, since they are now behaving more morally.
Constantly quoting is getting a bit tiresome (maybe I'm just as tired as a_dub). I hope you don't mind if I just type in a general response..
Firstly, I don't think I agree simply because you disagree--I've known that all too often I pick up the wrong connotations, take a wrong point of view, and generally misinterpret certain teachings. But then, my stubborn nature kicks in, and I just start defening/attacking with what I believe to be true. It's the past arguements that have made me really consider that what I think is probably wrong anyway.
I'm glad, Kaneda, that you're happy with this world. I can't say I'm all too satisfied with my current niche (student that can barely pay for gas, let alone insurance and taxes), so perhaps that's why I believed the Matrix was real, the first time I saw it. It's sound funny, but sometimes I still find myself (day)dreaming about this world as a simulation, and somehow breaking free from the chains. I know there's worse people out there, so I kinda stopped hoping for a new world. Now I just try to improve my own. I've thought about Buddhism, and only because I try to meditate like one, to achieve piece of mind (it's really a mess upstairs... all chaos), and thought it might be suiting. But, I don't know nearly enough about the religion/philosophy or what it teaches. I think I'm just copying some of the more prominent practices right now.
I'd love to pick up those books you mentioned. I'll probably have to wait for my next paycheck to come in, since I'm going on a class trip soon, and I will probably spend what's left of my money on food. Still, I plan on looking into those books you mentioned. Who knows, maybe I can even consider some of my more conservative peers to at least take a peek.
Vengefullness (sp?).. Exodus 20:5 "For I the LORD your God am a jealous god..."
Perhaps that's an explanation, of some sort? I never understood, though, why He gets to be jealous and we don't. Maybe this is just a conservative teaching, because it seems foolish that God would be above his own law...
(Oh no! Am I raising questions against myself?!? Ahhh!!)
..yea, I think I'm a bit tired/silly right now too, a_dub.
Back on topic.. I have no clue why I compared arrogance to a bee sting--I guess I should try posting in the mornings, instead of at night. Maybe then I'll have a bit more concentration on what I'm really writing... Anyway, I guess I'm a bit arrogant too, though I always get the connotation mixed up with something else. I'll just add it below "stubbornness" and work on it later.
Although, I guess my online-self isn't as stubborn as my offline-self. Probably because I'm more serious online, and tend to act out a facade for people to think they know who I am. Before I start examining myself, I'll just say thanks again for the complements. God knows these qualities (questioning beliefs) aren't welcome within the church.
But how did you get condemned for riding a motorcycle? I've never heard a case like that before (I have nothing against motorcycles, but that may be I live nearby the Harley Davidson capital--it's a major motorcycle poducer in the US).
Finally, I very vaguely remember something about that childish attention freak comment, but I guess it got buried like you said. Doesn't matter to me though--I've heard much worse.
...
and then there was a_dub:
I agree in your theory of God being 'shy' (for lack of a shorter term).
I'm not sure I made sense of your whole post, but I think I may be just as tired as you, so I'll just say: it may be a test of some sort. Jesus praised those who could believe and obey God's Word without ever seeing proof (Luke 11:28, I think). I'm sure he's not just "shy," but would rather have followers that trust him without having to see him. Then again, there are so many lost that way. Still, I don't think I'll give up on Him anytime soon. While I always have the voice that says, "What if you're wrong?" there's another voice whispering, "Can you afford not to believe?" But that's just me (and some strange whispers)
...
now, to hnguy:
How do you know that this primitive social pyramid is an act of morals? I think the idea of morals in general is very vague, so we may never know for sure. But for me, I see it as (in the wolf case) the best way to survive the various terrains that they roam. Otherwise, they would surely die (a lone wolf almost always does).
Firstly, I don't think I agree simply because you disagree--I've known that all too often I pick up the wrong connotations, take a wrong point of view, and generally misinterpret certain teachings. But then, my stubborn nature kicks in, and I just start defening/attacking with what I believe to be true. It's the past arguements that have made me really consider that what I think is probably wrong anyway.
I'm glad, Kaneda, that you're happy with this world. I can't say I'm all too satisfied with my current niche (student that can barely pay for gas, let alone insurance and taxes), so perhaps that's why I believed the Matrix was real, the first time I saw it. It's sound funny, but sometimes I still find myself (day)dreaming about this world as a simulation, and somehow breaking free from the chains. I know there's worse people out there, so I kinda stopped hoping for a new world. Now I just try to improve my own. I've thought about Buddhism, and only because I try to meditate like one, to achieve piece of mind (it's really a mess upstairs... all chaos), and thought it might be suiting. But, I don't know nearly enough about the religion/philosophy or what it teaches. I think I'm just copying some of the more prominent practices right now.
I'd love to pick up those books you mentioned. I'll probably have to wait for my next paycheck to come in, since I'm going on a class trip soon, and I will probably spend what's left of my money on food. Still, I plan on looking into those books you mentioned. Who knows, maybe I can even consider some of my more conservative peers to at least take a peek.
Vengefullness (sp?).. Exodus 20:5 "For I the LORD your God am a jealous god..."
Perhaps that's an explanation, of some sort? I never understood, though, why He gets to be jealous and we don't. Maybe this is just a conservative teaching, because it seems foolish that God would be above his own law...
(Oh no! Am I raising questions against myself?!? Ahhh!!)
..yea, I think I'm a bit tired/silly right now too, a_dub.
Back on topic.. I have no clue why I compared arrogance to a bee sting--I guess I should try posting in the mornings, instead of at night. Maybe then I'll have a bit more concentration on what I'm really writing... Anyway, I guess I'm a bit arrogant too, though I always get the connotation mixed up with something else. I'll just add it below "stubbornness" and work on it later.
Although, I guess my online-self isn't as stubborn as my offline-self. Probably because I'm more serious online, and tend to act out a facade for people to think they know who I am. Before I start examining myself, I'll just say thanks again for the complements. God knows these qualities (questioning beliefs) aren't welcome within the church.
But how did you get condemned for riding a motorcycle? I've never heard a case like that before (I have nothing against motorcycles, but that may be I live nearby the Harley Davidson capital--it's a major motorcycle poducer in the US).
Finally, I very vaguely remember something about that childish attention freak comment, but I guess it got buried like you said. Doesn't matter to me though--I've heard much worse.
...
and then there was a_dub:
I agree in your theory of God being 'shy' (for lack of a shorter term).
I'm not sure I made sense of your whole post, but I think I may be just as tired as you, so I'll just say: it may be a test of some sort. Jesus praised those who could believe and obey God's Word without ever seeing proof (Luke 11:28, I think). I'm sure he's not just "shy," but would rather have followers that trust him without having to see him. Then again, there are so many lost that way. Still, I don't think I'll give up on Him anytime soon. While I always have the voice that says, "What if you're wrong?" there's another voice whispering, "Can you afford not to believe?" But that's just me (and some strange whispers)
...
now, to hnguy:
How do you know that this primitive social pyramid is an act of morals? I think the idea of morals in general is very vague, so we may never know for sure. But for me, I see it as (in the wolf case) the best way to survive the various terrains that they roam. Otherwise, they would surely die (a lone wolf almost always does).
I'll just keep quoting - helps putting my thoughts in order, and breaks up my long rants
That's the idea... The kinds of Christians I really can't stand are the ones who totally reject this world, and life, as just a waiting room or test to see if you're allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Just seems a waste of the one thing that should matter - and teaching it to others is, to me, wasting those people's potential.
And if we are as "blasphemous" as to believe one side in the discussion of apocrypha, it may even be the exact teachings of Christ. As in, the infamous Gospel of Thomas. One of those random texts that was never added to the bible - for whatever reasons, right or wrong. And probably the most famous verse is:
It may be that it's a total distortion of the words of the Christian leader - we'll probably never know - but I'd much prefer for Christians to believe in that
Buddhism is, like most others, a religion whose morality you can't really argue with. It's basically "do no harm" and "moderation". I still don't find seeing life as a place of suffering to be liberated from as a really productive idea, however
A warning about "His Dark Materials" is in order... In form of a few (the ones most directly attacking) quotes: "For all it's history [the church] it's tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. And when it can't control them, it cuts them out. [.....] That is what the church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." And the most well known (but probably least interesting) quote of all: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all".
However, the Archbishop of Canterbury famously praised the trilogy (guess he saw that the only way to be offended is if you feel it hits a nerve...), and had lengthy discussions with Pullman about its content. Also note, that Jesus doesn't play a huge role in the book - actually, I think he's mentioned once. Pullman's point being, in my view, that the more dogmatic and conservative a Church becomes, the more Christ becomes just a word, not a spiritual guide. But it's no secret that Pullman believes in no religion
Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinions of both books.
Well, in most explanations, I've heard from Christians, he is. Above his own law. But I guess, at least he admits it Another explanation would be Pullman's, although no Christian would be able to accept that. Would be a spoiler to discuss that explanation. But we'll get to that.
As for arrogance, I hope you're not trying to apologize. No matter how arrogant I am, I still know it's not exactly the most productive attitude in the world.
Pretty much the same here. Although it's a bit more complicated than that, even - see below
That's where "sin" enters the picture. "Sinning" in most conservatives' minds seems to be the same as "not conforming". And "not conforming" seems to be my project...
So yes, I've been condemned for riding a motorcycle - by a random group of fundamentalists at a music festival albeit - probably because it still bears the connotation of being a rebel - and some Christians apparently can't tell my Ducati from a Harley, and a Harley rider from a member of Hell's Angels.
As for "attitude"... My girlfriend likes to call me a walking paradox - in terms of being an extremely helpful, caring, loving, considerate romantic, but at the same a reckless, rude, arrogant, irresponsible rebel jackass. It was my somewhat conscious decision during high school to add the "bad boy" persona to my personality (to get rid of the "computer geek/creative guy/intellectual" stereotype, among other reasons), and it stuck, when I figured out that this was "me" too. Doesn't go well with some Christians either - also, I get the impression that my "sins" are only made worse by my "innocent" physical appearance. Probably since Lucifer has an angel's face too
As for actions, a lot of them make sense as "sin" if you believe the bible's teachings, I know. A lot of them don't. I've once been advised by a conservative Christian to ask for forgiveness for kissing my girlfriend in public (really...). Apparently, we should be married, and even then more than a quick kiss on the lips in public = "sin".
Oh, and this calls for another warning about "His Dark Materials". Reading it, to some Christians, would probably consitute "sin".
| Quote: |
| I know there's worse people out there, so I kinda stopped hoping for a new world. Now I just try to improve my own. |
That's the idea... The kinds of Christians I really can't stand are the ones who totally reject this world, and life, as just a waiting room or test to see if you're allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Just seems a waste of the one thing that should matter - and teaching it to others is, to me, wasting those people's potential.
And if we are as "blasphemous" as to believe one side in the discussion of apocrypha, it may even be the exact teachings of Christ. As in, the infamous Gospel of Thomas. One of those random texts that was never added to the bible - for whatever reasons, right or wrong. And probably the most famous verse is:
| The Gospel of Thomas wrote: |
| Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty. |
It may be that it's a total distortion of the words of the Christian leader - we'll probably never know - but I'd much prefer for Christians to believe in that
| Quote: |
| But, I don't know nearly enough about the religion/philosophy or what it teaches. I think I'm just copying some of the more prominent practices right now. |
Buddhism is, like most others, a religion whose morality you can't really argue with. It's basically "do no harm" and "moderation". I still don't find seeing life as a place of suffering to be liberated from as a really productive idea, however
| Quote: |
| Still, I plan on looking into those books you mentioned. Who knows, maybe I can even consider some of my more conservative peers to at least take a peek. |
A warning about "His Dark Materials" is in order... In form of a few (the ones most directly attacking) quotes: "For all it's history [the church] it's tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. And when it can't control them, it cuts them out. [.....] That is what the church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." And the most well known (but probably least interesting) quote of all: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all".
However, the Archbishop of Canterbury famously praised the trilogy (guess he saw that the only way to be offended is if you feel it hits a nerve...), and had lengthy discussions with Pullman about its content. Also note, that Jesus doesn't play a huge role in the book - actually, I think he's mentioned once.
Pullman's point being, in my view, that the more dogmatic and conservative a Church becomes, the more Christ becomes just a word, not a spiritual guide. But it's no secret that Pullman believes in no religion
Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinions of both books.
| Quote: |
| I never understood, though, why He gets to be jealous and we don't. Maybe this is just a conservative teaching, because it seems foolish that God would be above his own law... |
Well, in most explanations, I've heard from Christians, he is. Above his own law. But I guess, at least he admits it
Another explanation would be Pullman's, although no Christian would be able to accept that. Would be a spoiler to discuss that explanation. But we'll get to that.
As for arrogance, I hope you're not trying to apologize. No matter how arrogant I am, I still know it's not exactly the most productive attitude in the world.
| Quote: |
| Although, I guess my online-self isn't as stubborn as my offline-self. Probably because I'm more serious online, and tend to act out a facade for people to think they know who I am. |
Pretty much the same here. Although it's a bit more complicated than that, even - see below
| Quote: |
| But how did you get condemned for riding a motorcycle? I've never heard a case like that before (I have nothing against motorcycles, but that may be I live nearby the Harley Davidson capital--it's a major motorcycle poducer in the US). |
That's where "sin" enters the picture. "Sinning" in most conservatives' minds seems to be the same as "not conforming". And "not conforming" seems to be my project...
So yes, I've been condemned for riding a motorcycle - by a random group of fundamentalists at a music festival albeit - probably because it still bears the connotation of being a rebel - and some Christians apparently can't tell my Ducati from a Harley, and a Harley rider from a member of Hell's Angels.
As for "attitude"... My girlfriend likes to call me a walking paradox - in terms of being an extremely helpful, caring, loving, considerate romantic, but at the same a reckless, rude, arrogant, irresponsible rebel jackass. It was my somewhat conscious decision during high school to add the "bad boy" persona to my personality (to get rid of the "computer geek/creative guy/intellectual" stereotype, among other reasons), and it stuck, when I figured out that this was "me" too.
Doesn't go well with some Christians either - also, I get the impression that my "sins" are only made worse by my "innocent" physical appearance. Probably since Lucifer has an angel's face too
As for actions, a lot of them make sense as "sin" if you believe the bible's teachings, I know. A lot of them don't. I've once been advised by a conservative Christian to ask for forgiveness for kissing my girlfriend in public (really...). Apparently, we should be married, and even then more than a quick kiss on the lips in public = "sin".
Oh, and this calls for another warning about "His Dark Materials". Reading it, to some Christians, would probably consitute "sin".
Sorry it took me so long to reply; I'm currently on a class trip, visiting all the historical (and somewhat boring) cities on the east coast.. Still, I found some time to post a quick reply. Let's hope it's worth it...
Ah, Puritans, perhaps? I never saw use for their beliefs (predestination) either--working your whole life just to see if you made it? I'd like to think that I have some sort of influence on where I end up, and it's not just a throw of the dice...
Hmmm, I don't think I've ever heard of the Gospel of Thomas, but then again, I'm in the dark about a lot of these Bible-related issues.. I've been told, however, that most scripture that never made it to the Bible would actually be 99% true. It's the 1% contradiction that led people to remove it. I'm not sure what to believe about those texts (mostly because I've never read them).
If everyone was a Buddhist, there just might be some productivity; at least, a few less conflicts? I'd love the idea of becoming a Buddhist just to clear my mind--get rid of all those voices and what-not...
Since I'm still on the trip, I won't be finding those books for a while, but I do intend to find them still! I'm sure most of my [conservative] friends would be interested in reading it just to argue against it. Debates have become a popular thing, although I think they're taken a wrong turn somewhere.. Some love debating with Catholics--trying to prove them wrong, while others will just bash about every other religion in general. So much for Christian love/fellowship/brotherhood/whatever. :confused:
Maybe I'm watching too many movies then--in Dragonheart (good movie, if you haven't already seen it), I remember that the young/new king's ex-teacher tells him that "not even the king is above the law!" I think I just carried that impression over when it must not be true...
I know what you mean; I've tried (in vain, usually) to stop some friends from attacking the Catholic Church so much. It's a respectable church that has existed since the time of Christ--their members are going to heaven just as we (assuming heaven's real, of course), yet so many cry and complain because they don't follow all conservative rules. It gets a tad annoying to hear "They're not us, so they're wrong," though it's usually worded differently.
Wow... well, I hope you have better riding experiences in the future!
My attitude's always different. On this current trip I've been identified mostly as a transcendentalist. I can't say I'm against the idea, and it's pretty much all I do to "rebel." Then there are those that say Christians can't be Transcendentalists, which I think it bogus. Too conservative and stuck up, IMO.
Anyway, most of the time I give everyone a different impression of who I am; without realizing it. I'll be an idiot to one person, a maniacl jester to someone else, perhaps a philosopher to some other guy, and a obsessed video-gamer to everyone else (though, truth be told, I don't play too often). I think of it as wearing a bunch of masks, and I'm too cautious to take them off in public.
I "sin" far too much for a Christian anyway. I think a lot of it's because I'm so apathetic towards others--and that's a sin, I've learned. I have to give the impression of a Christian--I have to act godly in front of others. For the most part though, I honestly don't care, and many actions reflect that (sometimes regrettably).
People can condemn me if that's what makes them happy; I don't see how reading a book will send me to hell though (perhaps like riding a motorcycle?)..
| Kaneda wrote: |
|
That's the idea... The kinds of Christians I really can't stand are the ones who totally reject this world, and life, as just a waiting room or test to see if you're allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Just seems a waste of the one thing that should matter - and teaching it to others is, to me, wasting those people's potential. |
Ah, Puritans, perhaps? I never saw use for their beliefs (predestination) either--working your whole life just to see if you made it? I'd like to think that I have some sort of influence on where I end up, and it's not just a throw of the dice...
| Quote: | ||
And if we are as "blasphemous" as to believe one side in the discussion of apocrypha, it may even be the exact teachings of Christ. As in, the infamous Gospel of Thomas. One of those random texts that was never added to the bible - for whatever reasons, right or wrong. And probably the most famous verse is:
It may be that it's a total distortion of the words of the Christian leader - we'll probably never know - but I'd much prefer for Christians to believe in that |
Hmmm, I don't think I've ever heard of the Gospel of Thomas, but then again, I'm in the dark about a lot of these Bible-related issues.. I've been told, however, that most scripture that never made it to the Bible would actually be 99% true. It's the 1% contradiction that led people to remove it. I'm not sure what to believe about those texts (mostly because I've never read them).
| Quote: |
| Buddhism is, like most others, a religion whose morality you can't really argue with. It's basically "do no harm" and "moderation". I still don't find seeing life as a place of suffering to be liberated from as a really productive idea, however |
If everyone was a Buddhist, there just might be some productivity; at least, a few less conflicts? I'd love the idea of becoming a Buddhist just to clear my mind--get rid of all those voices and what-not...
| Quote: |
| A warning about "His Dark Materials" is in order... In form of a few (the ones most directly attacking) quotes: "For all it's history [the church] it's tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. And when it can't control them, it cuts them out. [.....] That is what the church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." And the most well known (but probably least interesting) quote of all: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all".
However, the Archbishop of Canterbury famously praised the trilogy (guess he saw that the only way to be offended is if you feel it hits a nerve...), and had lengthy discussions with Pullman about its content. Also note, that Jesus doesn't play a huge role in the book - actually, I think he's mentioned once. Pullman's point being, in my view, that the more dogmatic and conservative a Church becomes, the more Christ becomes just a word, not a spiritual guide. But it's no secret that Pullman believes in no religion
Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinions of both books. |
Since I'm still on the trip, I won't be finding those books for a while, but I do intend to find them still! I'm sure most of my [conservative] friends would be interested in reading it just to argue against it. Debates have become a popular thing, although I think they're taken a wrong turn somewhere.. Some love debating with Catholics--trying to prove them wrong, while others will just bash about every other religion in general. So much for Christian love/fellowship/brotherhood/whatever. :confused:
| Quote: |
|
Well, in most explanations, I've heard from Christians, he is. Above his own law. But I guess, at least he admits it Another explanation would be Pullman's, although no Christian would be able to accept that. Would be a spoiler to discuss that explanation. But we'll get to that.
|
Maybe I'm watching too many movies then--in Dragonheart (good movie, if you haven't already seen it), I remember that the young/new king's ex-teacher tells him that "not even the king is above the law!" I think I just carried that impression over when it must not be true...
| Quote: |
| That's where "sin" enters the picture. "Sinning" in most conservatives' minds seems to be the same as "not conforming". And "not conforming" seems to be my project... |
I know what you mean; I've tried (in vain, usually) to stop some friends from attacking the Catholic Church so much. It's a respectable church that has existed since the time of Christ--their members are going to heaven just as we (assuming heaven's real, of course), yet so many cry and complain because they don't follow all conservative rules. It gets a tad annoying to hear "They're not us, so they're wrong," though it's usually worded differently.
| Quote: |
| So yes, I've been condemned for riding a motorcycle - by a random group of fundamentalists at a music festival albeit - probably because it still bears the connotation of being a rebel - and some Christians apparently can't tell my Ducati from a Harley, and a Harley rider from a member of Hell's Angels.
As for "attitude"... My girlfriend likes to call me a walking paradox - in terms of being an extremely helpful, caring, loving, considerate romantic, but at the same a reckless, rude, arrogant, irresponsible rebel jackass. It was my somewhat conscious decision during high school to add the "bad boy" persona to my personality (to get rid of the "computer geek/creative guy/intellectual" stereotype, among other reasons), and it stuck, when I figured out that this was "me" too. Doesn't go well with some Christians either - also, I get the impression that my "sins" are only made worse by my "innocent" physical appearance. Probably since Lucifer has an angel's face too |
Wow... well, I hope you have better riding experiences in the future!
My attitude's always different. On this current trip I've been identified mostly as a transcendentalist. I can't say I'm against the idea, and it's pretty much all I do to "rebel." Then there are those that say Christians can't be Transcendentalists, which I think it bogus. Too conservative and stuck up, IMO.
Anyway, most of the time I give everyone a different impression of who I am; without realizing it. I'll be an idiot to one person, a maniacl jester to someone else, perhaps a philosopher to some other guy, and a obsessed video-gamer to everyone else (though, truth be told, I don't play too often). I think of it as wearing a bunch of masks, and I'm too cautious to take them off in public.
| Quote: |
| As for actions, a lot of them make sense as "sin" if you believe the bible's teachings, I know. A lot of them don't. I've once been advised by a conservative Christian to ask for forgiveness for kissing my girlfriend in public (really...). Apparently, we should be married, and even then more than a quick kiss on the lips in public = "sin".
Oh, and this calls for another warning about "His Dark Materials". Reading it, to some Christians, would probably consitute "sin". |
I "sin" far too much for a Christian anyway. I think a lot of it's because I'm so apathetic towards others--and that's a sin, I've learned. I have to give the impression of a Christian--I have to act godly in front of others. For the most part though, I honestly don't care, and many actions reflect that (sometimes regrettably).
People can condemn me if that's what makes them happy; I don't see how reading a book will send me to hell though (perhaps like riding a motorcycle?)..
| Juparis wrote: |
| Ah, Puritans, perhaps? I never saw use for their beliefs (predestination) either--working your whole life just to see if you made it? I'd like to think that I have some sort of influence on where I end up, and it's not just a throw of the dice... |
It's not so much a problem with predestination, as it's a problem with the whole idea of a "better" afterlife. Believing this life is secondary. Whether you believe you can make a difference in this life or not, in the end it's likely to become all about the goal, not the journey. Which, to me, is a waste. Especially if (and I know this makes no sense for any Christian to even think) there is no afterlife. And even, to me, if there is, and this afterlife is the promised paradise of peace, harmony and constant happiness... It's a cliche, but I subscribe to it: I'd be bored out of my mind. But that, of course, is simply because I'm "corrupted by sin".
| Quote: |
| I've been told, however, that most scripture that never made it to the Bible would actually be 99% true. It's the 1% contradiction that led people to remove it. |
That's one side of the debate. Another is that they were removed because they were "fake" (whatever that means in this context).
| Quote: |
| If everyone was a Buddhist, there just might be some productivity; at least, a few less conflicts? I'd love the idea of becoming a Buddhist just to clear my mind--get rid of all those voices and what-not... |
Sure, if everyone were a Buddhist, we'd have a lot more peace. The problem is more with the "life as suffering", for the same reasons as noted above. The idea of reincarnation is more appealing to me than the Christian afterlife, but to the Buddhist, reincarnation is just more suffering.
| Quote: |
| so many cry and complain because they don't follow all conservative rules. It gets a tad annoying to hear "They're not us, so they're wrong," though it's usually worded differently. |
The problem is, too many Christians look exclusively to some random person to interpret the bible for them. They tend to blindly go where the authority tells them to go. And on my worse days of anti-religion, I'd say that's built into their religion. Blind faith in God, when God doesn't literally speak to you, quickly becomes blind faith in any chosen authority that does speak.
Any kind of faith must have some kind of "blindness", or it's not faith by definition. But the bible has (again, on one of the worse days) way too many passages that directly, or indirectly, say "don't think, don't ask questions, just follow". Abraham becomes a role model for almost killing his son in blind faith, because God needs proof (just hold that thought, we'll get back to it). Many Christians like to think of this as a testament to Abraham's strength and purity of soul. I don't. Anyway, Abraham is old testament, but Jesus - and many of the epistles, continue this idea of not doubting, not thinking, not questioning, just following.
Ask a Christian for proof of God's existance, and you'll get two replies: 1. "The world is proof". If you don't agree with him/her, then 2. "You shouldn't need evidence".
The latter I can almost agree with - I don't need proof that my girlfriend loves me either. I see it every day. But this omnipotent God needs proof that you have faith and that you love him. Why? Because that's what anyone needs if they want to - not love - but control.
I truely wish Job had never asked forgiveness.
| Quote: |
| Wow... well, I hope you have better riding experiences in the future! |
10 years, and only a few bad incidents like that. I'll say I've had a lot of better riding experiences. And even that one, in hindsight, was fun.
Not going to change. And once again, to be fair, I've also had fun trips with other bike riders who were Christian.
| Quote: |
| My attitude's always different. On this current trip I've been identified mostly as a transcendentalist. I can't say I'm against the idea, and it's pretty much all I do to "rebel." Then there are those that say Christians can't be Transcendentalists, which I think it bogus. Too conservative and stuck up, IMO. |
Well, transcendentalism = not relying on religious doctrine, so we're back to the discussion above. I applaud you for daring that as a Christian in a conservative environment
| Quote: |
| Anyway, most of the time I give everyone a different impression of who I am; without realizing it. I'll be an idiot to one person, a maniacl jester to someone else, perhaps a philosopher to some other guy, and a obsessed video-gamer to everyone else (though, truth be told, I don't play too often). I think of it as wearing a bunch of masks, and I'm too cautious to take them off in public. |
I don't think the mask idea is entirely right, even if a lot of people like to use that analogy... "Mask" seems to imply that the maniacal jester, the idiot, the philosopher, the video-gamer are not you at all - that you create a fake personality that you hide behind - especially when you say "too cautious to take them off in public". It's not masks, just you showing different sides of your real personality. That's just adapting to your surroundings, and as long as you don't do it from some notion of being what you think people want you to be, I don't see anything wrong with it. The real mask comes on if you constantly say and do whatever you think people expect of you to say and do.
| Quote: |
| I think a lot of it's because I'm so apathetic towards others--and that's a sin, I've learned. I have to give the impression of a Christian--I have to act godly in front of others. For the most part though, I honestly don't care, and many actions reflect that (sometimes regrettably). |
The concept of turning the other cheek can be taken to extremes where I don't think it's healthy. As a kid, I was shy, quiet, an apt pupil, avoided conflict of any kind, always did the "safe" and considerate thing. Hence, lots of people stomped on me. And since I was very conscious about what people expected of me, my personality was locked that way. When I got to high school, where noone knew me or had any assumptions about who I was, I had the chance to go to the opposite extreme, so I did (was far from as easy as it sounds, though). Outgoing, rude, actively seeking conflict, getting into physical fights, doing stupid stunts putting my life on the line. Hence, also stomped on a lot of people who were like I used to be.
A lot of things I'm not proud of, but not many things I really regret. I'm quite sure I never permanently harmed anyone - although a lot of people will probably remember me as the biggest jerk they ever met.
The bottom line is, I honestly don't care either. One thing is morality, another is feeling the need to please everyone. The latter, I don't think is healthy.
| Quote: |
| I don't see how reading a book will send me to hell though (perhaps like riding a motorcycle?).. |
Pretty much
I'm surprised at least once a month by reading about, or experiencing, some new notion of sin invented by some wacky Christians. Latest thing I was reminded of was Vrythramax mentioning that his tattoos made "very small little old ladies" believe he "marked up God's temple". I've only had a few disapproving looks from people (which don't have to be Christians) on that account - also had Christians compliment my body art, though . But I do know that whatever you dislike, you'll be able to somehow find justification for that dislike in the bible. If "Harry Potter" = sinful books, then you can bet "His Dark Materials" are too.| Kaneda wrote: |
| It's not so much a problem with predestination, as it's a problem with the whole idea of a "better" afterlife. Believing this life is secondary. Whether you believe you can make a difference in this life or not, in the end it's likely to become all about the goal, not the journey. Which, to me, is a waste. Especially if (and I know this makes no sense for any Christian to even think) there is no afterlife. And even, to me, if there is, and this afterlife is the promised paradise of peace, harmony and constant happiness... It's a cliche, but I subscribe to it: I'd be bored out of my mind. But that, of course, is simply because I'm "corrupted by sin". |
| Quote: |
|
Sure, if everyone were a Buddhist, we'd have a lot more peace. The problem is more with the "life as suffering", for the same reasons as noted above. The idea of reincarnation is more appealing to me than the Christian afterlife, but to the Buddhist, reincarnation is just more suffering. |
Perhaps Buddhism is a more realistic religion in that the teachings are based on the most probable truth--that the world will never be entirely Buddhist. If they were, could they really keep saying it's all suffering? If everyone were devout in a single religion, I'm not sure there would be any suffering. Of course the key is being devout fundamentalists--arguments and even wars can start based on the silliest of things.. Evil grows, so either it's here or it's not. There's either perfection or imperfection. I don't think there's any inbetween... Am I wandering too far off topic? I lost myself just typing that last bit...
| Quote: |
| The problem is, too many Christians look exclusively to some random person to interpret the bible for them. They tend to blindly go where the authority tells them to go. And on my worse days of anti-religion, I'd say that's built into their religion. Blind faith in God, when God doesn't literally speak to you, quickly becomes blind faith in any chosen authority that does speak. |
I hope you don't mind if I use that little bit elsewhere; perhaps in real life. I've been trying to tell people the same thing (without knowing how to say it) to justify my own weakness in the faith. If I could, I'd rather find and read the original texts myself: to translate them and come to my own conclusions. But then again, many would misinterpret that as a vain attempt to say I came to faith on my own--yet another sin. :sigh:
| Quote: |
| Any kind of faith must have some kind of "blindness", or it's not faith by definition. But the bible has (again, on one of the worse days) way too many passages that directly, or indirectly, say "don't think, don't ask questions, just follow". Abraham becomes a role model for almost killing his son in blind faith, because God needs proof (just hold that thought, we'll get back to it). Many Christians like to think of this as a testament to Abraham's strength and purity of soul. I don't. Anyway, Abraham is old testament, but Jesus - and many of the epistles, continue this idea of not doubting, not thinking, not questioning, just following. |
I've thought a little about that, but eventually decided to be ignorant (I guess?). I fear I may have become a bit too comfortable thinking that there's something better to come after death--that there really is a god that loves me in one way or another.
Again, if I could, I'd find the original scripts and come to my own conclusions, but I don't see that happening anytime in the future. I guess I'm just one of those people..
| Quote: |
| Ask a Christian for proof of God's existance, and you'll get two replies: 1. "The world is proof". If you don't agree with him/her, then 2. "You shouldn't need evidence".
The latter I can almost agree with - I don't need proof that my girlfriend loves me either. I see it every day. But this omnipotent God needs proof that you have faith and that you love him. Why? Because that's what anyone needs if they want to - not love - but control. I truely wish Job had never asked forgiveness. |
Some very interesting thoughts that I hadn't considered before.
Christianity really is a blind faith, and though we have little proof of God (depending on your viewpoint), he demands so much from us. However, if I said that my senses aren't enough to justify the existence of air, what more proof is there? I guess air doesn't demand proof from us though. It's a foolish though, I know, but when the inquirer disregards all proof, is there really anything that will satisfy him?
I don't know much about Job--other than the thousands of tortures he endured. Is it too much to ask what you mean by his request for forgiveness?
| Quote: |
|
Well, transcendentalism = not relying on religious doctrine, so we're back to the discussion above. I applaud you for daring that as a Christian in a conservative environment |
The way I learned it was that transcendentalists combined their philosophy with their religion. In the 60's, for example, many of the transcendentalists (most commonly known as hippies) believed in a higher spiritual connection that could be obtained by becoming one with the "Over Soul."
I always thought there could be some sort of religious belief in there, just mixed in with personal philosophy. That alone gets me in enough trouble.
| Quote: |
|
I don't think the mask idea is entirely right, even if a lot of people like to use that analogy... "Mask" seems to imply that the maniacal jester, the idiot, the philosopher, the video-gamer are not you at all - that you create a fake personality that you hide behind - especially when you say "too cautious to take them off in public". It's not masks, just you showing different sides of your real personality. That's just adapting to your surroundings, and as long as you don't do it from some notion of being what you think people want you to be, I don't see anything wrong with it. The real mask comes on if you constantly say and do whatever you think people expect of you to say and do. |
Are you a therapist? Your ideas seem spot-on with the first try, and I've always been [futilly] trying to find an answer myself.
So assuming these masks are just different faces of the same personality: Why are they so contradictory? I think I listed some poor examples. To better demonstrate, I would have to show you my music collection. There's the classical side, black metal, death metal (yes, there is a difference
), hard rock, electropunk, and normal 80's boogie. Maybe there isn't any contradiction there, but while in these different moods, I can give a false impression of my real self. Relatives see me as a caring, passionate, gifted child. Immediate family sees me as a flawed, confused couch potato. Some peers see me as a sadistic gothic or even emo (:shudders:) while even others think of me as the kind, gentle brainiac that I know I'm not. And then there are those that come to me with their own problems, and so far it seems I haven't done too bad in giving advice.
Around new adults, I'll usually put on my gentleman facade. If it's a new teacher, I'll slump around lazily to give the false impression that I don't care (so I don't have to answer questions). I rarely feel like I'm acting like myself, which is why I always thought of these "moods" as masks..
| Quote: |
|
Pretty much I'm surprised at least once a month by reading about, or experiencing, some new notion of sin invented by some wacky Christians. Latest thing I was reminded of was Vrythramax mentioning that his tattoos made "very small little old ladies" believe he "marked up God's temple". I've only had a few disapproving looks from people (which don't have to be Christians) on that account - also had Christians compliment my body art, though . But I do know that whatever you dislike, you'll be able to somehow find justification for that dislike in the bible. If "Harry Potter" = sinful books, then you can bet "His Dark Materials" are too. |
Hah--I'm sorry, but I always laugh at those who fear the Harry Potter series. For some reason, modern children are suddenly incapable of distinguishing fiction from real life. I know what you mean, just based on the Harry Potter incidents.
I don't see tattoos are sinful, though I guess I can see how some might interpret them that way ("It's actually God's body that we're loaning" or something like that). Even so, I'd love to get a few tattoos myself. The only reason I haven't is because I still live with (and respect) my mom. Oh yea, and I'd be expelled (silly, no?).
I'm sure I'll be OK reading the book; I can always say I'm "preparing myself to defend the faith" or something likewise, though I hope you know that's not why I'd like to read it. Either way, it's a book, and I think I'm entitled to my own ability to read, aren't I?
The trouble is the major religeons are written in a totally different language that needs to be translated, so a lot of blur and distortion creeps in to just what the rules are, you can make up the rules as you go along basically, about as solid an anchor for lifestyle as a feather, some christians use it for good, most say they are christian and break the rules where they see fit, morality on the other hand is TOTALLY seperate from any religeon and it annoys me greatly for them to be confused in to one area, morality basically boils down to what is wrong and what is right, lets not muddy the issue and make it more complex than it really is, and which makes more sense to you, knowing what is right because you are "god fearing" and do what your told like a good little child, or because you are a thinking adult who reasons that if you do wrong by others you will probably get bad things come back to you, and it is an easier less guilt ridden path to do the right thing, not because you are told to, because YOU want to, seeing as the majority of people in the world claim to belive in some major religeon, at least in part, I would say the answer to the question above is definitely, no.
| Juparis wrote: |
| Haha; some interesting thoughts. I'd love to make a difference in "this life," or to leave my own "footprints in the sands of time." It's pointless, according to Christianity. |
Yes. Which is a big problem with Christianity.
| Quote: |
| I forgot which book it's in, but there's a chapter somewhere in which on of the prophet exclaims nothing more than "everything is meaningless!" |
| Ecclesiastes 1:2-5 wrote: |
| Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains for ever. The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. |
?
Vanity here means "in vain" - the root meaning is actually "breath" and is also the name Abel ("Hebel") - I know a few Jewish scholars, and at least one of them thinks this is deliberate - the story of Cain and Abel is - among other things - an example of why our lives (Abel's life) are (is) "in vain".
And yes, it's the fundamental existential problem, and most religions choose to "solve" it by saying, "don't worry. It'll be better when you die". It's more fundamental than choice of belief - it's the basis for it. Or it should be, except most people are brought up with it, and never get to really choose themselves.
It lies at the heart of religious dispute, because one thing you can never hope to understand is another person's choice of how to give his life meaning. A devout Christian will never be able to understand why an atheist doesn't need God to make meaning (and sometimes he'll claim that the atheist does, but doesn't know it). A "true" atheist will never be able to understand why a Christian needs God to make meaning (and sometimes he'll claim that the Christian just took the easy path, and left his choice to others).
| Quote: |
| If everyone were devout in a single religion, I'm not sure there would be any suffering. |
Depending on the religion, if everyone could agree on everything, sure. The only suffering would come from the basis mentioned above. That everyone has to choose their own path, and with everyone devout in a single religion, that's not possible
The majority of the world would be even more miserable about their own life.
| Quote: |
| I hope you don't mind if I use that little bit elsewhere; perhaps in real life. I've been trying to tell people the same thing (without knowing how to say it) to justify my own weakness in the faith. If I could, I'd rather find and read the original texts myself: to translate them and come to my own conclusions. But then again, many would misinterpret that as a vain attempt to say I came to faith on my own--yet another sin. :sigh: |
My last post was already too long - and off topic (as all these posts have been), so I cut out my long list (still only random picks) of verses in the bible which tend to enforce conformism - I boiled it down to Abraham. The only purpose of making it a sin to "come to faith on your own" is that you're no longer reliant on some authority to tell you what to think and what to believe.
| Quote: |
| Again, if I could, I'd find the original scripts and come to my own conclusions, but I don't see that happening anytime in the future. I guess I'm just one of those people.. |
It's also a good idea to note that there are people who have studied ancient Hebrew and Greek for years to translate it for you - you can't really expect to make a better translation. But the very least a person seeking answers should do would be to scrap King James' Bible, at the very least get a Revised Standard Version or similar, or even better, get a version with the original text + notes in parallel text with a translation - or a software version with comprehensive notes on every single word - allowing you to look up the essential words of the text.
Often, you'll be surprised. A lot of modern translations are still rooted in convention rather than accurate translation, because a new literal translation would shake deeply rooted beliefs of one or more Christian societies. Any bible which doesn't follow certain conventions would probably be deemed heresy or unauthoritative.
In general, the Jewish interpretation of the Tanakh (and especially the Torah) is much more varied than the Christian interpretation of the Bible. Jewish mysticism is generally more accepted than the Christian equivalent - having entered mainstream Judaism many times throughout history - even when it dwelves into the very nature of God (or the Gods - that's how varied you can get). I'd actually advise a Christian to have a look at Jewish kaballah, if nothing else, then to be inspired to find some answers.
| Quote: |
| Some very interesting thoughts that I hadn't considered before. Christianity really is a blind faith, and though we have little proof of God (depending on your viewpoint), he demands so much from us. However, if I said that my senses aren't enough to justify the existence of air, what more proof is there? I guess air doesn't demand proof from us though. It's a foolish though, I know, but when the inquirer disregards all proof, is there really anything that will satisfy him? |
As I mention in another thread (Deism vs. Atheism), I don't believe in the whole idea of proving or disproving God's existence by science or logic. I believe the answer is unknowable, and irrelevant to life. It comes down to whether you feel the need for a god or not.
| Quote: |
| I don't know much about Job--other than the thousands of tortures he endured. Is it too much to ask what you mean by his request for forgiveness? |
The book of Job is probably one of the most interesting bits in the Old Testament (some also believe it to be the oldest). The basic story is, Job is a wealthy, highly religious and pious man, well-regarded by everyone, helping widows, orphaned children, blind people etc. Then God decides to test Job, and gets Satan to take away every property of Job's - and kill all his children. Job's reaction: despair, but also the famous statement: "The Lord gave and the Lord took away. Blessed be the name of the Lord". Satan asks for permission to do more, gets it, and then smites Job with leprosy. His wife tells Job to curse God. He won't, basically saying that he accepted God's good gifts, so he should also accept evil.
Job then gets a visit from three friends. After a week of silence, he complains about his misery. His friends are convinced that Job must have committed some sin to incite the wrath of God, and that Job should repent. Job denies this, insists on his innocence. He believes God sometimes wreaks havoc to test his followers' faith, or maybe to encourage them to take more action based on their faith or strengthen it, or maybe simply because he finds pleasure in causing their misery. God appears, and makes a very lengthy (and very well written, actually) speech, the sole point being: Where was Job when God created the universe? In other words, "I have more power than you, don't question me". And Job, in spite of his misery, asks for forgiveness for his "sin" of questioning God's motives. Then God restores him to health, gives him double the wealth he had before, a large family, and a happy life. (He also lets Job pray for his friends, while they make sacrifices for speaking untruths about God (saying that he's punishing Job for a sin...))
| Quote: |
| Are you a therapist? Your ideas seem spot-on with the first try, and I've always been [futilly] trying to find an answer myself. |
Far from a therapist. Most of these ideas aren't first try. The notion of masks is very related to the discussion of nice, considerate, helpful, caring Kaneda and reckless, aggressive, rude, anti-authority Kaneda (wow, I hate that name as much as Serge now). As for other ideas, I'm just a guy whose purpose in life is testing limits, trying everything, learning everything I can, going everywhere I can, talking and listening to everyone I can, and keeping an open mind. But we're getting way off topic (these posts should really be PM's, shouldn't they?
)
| Quote: |
| So assuming these masks are just different faces of the same personality: Why are they so contradictory? |
People are contradictory. It's as simple as that. And I'd say, being rude, careless etc. can be as productive as being constantly friendly to everyone. And keeping every negative emotion inside yourself certainly isn't productive.
| Quote: |
| but while in these different moods, I can give a false impression of my real self. |
Who says they're false impressions? If you're "giving" them, they come from you, whether they're a conscious choice or not. Sure, it's possible to make a false impression, but really only if your intent is to consciously do so. To take my example again, I consciously chose to be a "different" person, but not in order to give an impression of a person I wasn't. I did it to explore a side of my person that I'd kept hidden too long. Turned out to make me feel more whole.
| Quote: |
| Hah--I'm sorry, but I always laugh at those who fear the Harry Potter series. For some reason, modern children are suddenly incapable of distinguishing fiction from real life. I know what you mean, just based on the Harry Potter incidents. |
You know what? Compare the Narnia books (which most Christians adore) to the Harry Potter books. You'll find magic in both. You'll find centaurs in both. You'll find fight between good and evil in both. You'll find God directly mentioned in neither, but you'll find an abundance of Christian values in both. What is the one major thematic difference between the two? The children in the Narnia books do good by following Aslan's command. Harry Potter (and Dumbledore) does good through breaking every rule he doesn't agree with. Pattern, much?
I'd reply to more of it, but my feeling is more and more of us having hijacked this thread
Again, private message would probably be better, since there's not much to do (directly) with morality here...You are just another arrogant christian who was raised by arrogant christian parents and all you can do is take denominationalism to all new low by attacking something as general as spirituality. Well I got news for the creator of this topic... JESUS WAS A CRIMINAL! Not only that, a good portion of felons are religious.
Don't make up ridiculous stereotypes that could hurt innocent people (i.e. atheists who want to get a job but the employer is a moron like you). Why don't you encourage compassion instead of hate? Like Jesus would do.
Don't make up ridiculous stereotypes that could hurt innocent people (i.e. atheists who want to get a job but the employer is a moron like you). Why don't you encourage compassion instead of hate? Like Jesus would do.
I guess it's time to get back on topic...
To what mabuhay said:
gonzo was only asking a simple question, yet you take such offence to his mere propsition! Are you not proving his theory by doing so? From your post alone, I can only infer that you are the arrogent person here. You may disagree, but what else can I base my opinion off of?
Perhaps you'd be better off discussing the topic as others have done; maturely. Who knows, you may become enraptured in the debate like I was, and it could lead you to some new answers in life (even if they are a bit off topic).
I think most, if not all, Christians would agree that Jesus was not a criminal. According to Christian belief, he was perfect. But if you have some evidence or a theory concerning Jesus and his criminal record, I'd be interested in hearing it..
Finally, I don't think gonzo meant to make up such a "ridiculous stereotype," nor do I think he did. There was a question which he supported with his own theory--how does that hurt innocent people? And yet, even though "Jesus was a criminal," you tell him to to encourage compassion, "like Jesus would do"? That seems a bit contradictory to me...
I'd be willing to listen to your arguement, but you gotta get rid of all the hot air and insults first.
To what mabuhay said:
gonzo was only asking a simple question, yet you take such offence to his mere propsition! Are you not proving his theory by doing so? From your post alone, I can only infer that you are the arrogent person here. You may disagree, but what else can I base my opinion off of?
Perhaps you'd be better off discussing the topic as others have done; maturely. Who knows, you may become enraptured in the debate like I was, and it could lead you to some new answers in life (even if they are a bit off topic).
I think most, if not all, Christians would agree that Jesus was not a criminal. According to Christian belief, he was perfect. But if you have some evidence or a theory concerning Jesus and his criminal record, I'd be interested in hearing it..
Finally, I don't think gonzo meant to make up such a "ridiculous stereotype," nor do I think he did. There was a question which he supported with his own theory--how does that hurt innocent people? And yet, even though "Jesus was a criminal," you tell him to to encourage compassion, "like Jesus would do"? That seems a bit contradictory to me...
I'd be willing to listen to your arguement, but you gotta get rid of all the hot air and insults first.
Jesus was arrested and executed on the charge of "false prophecy". Sure it was a bogus charge and no one deserves to be punished for something as arbitrary as that, but he nonetheless was convicted of breaking that law. Therefore he was a criminal.
You view the word criminal as automatically being a barbarous person and fail to see that many freedoms were won by breaking laws through civil disobedience (ghandi, MLK, etc.) Other examples of innocent criminals include people who were framed, punished for a bogus crime, or desperate individuals with no other choice but to say, steal a loaf of bread.
Just because I said Jesus was a criminal (which he was) doesn't mean I am judging his character like you might tend to do with atheists. If a person is "perfect", that doesn't mean they are free from being a victim of the state and being labeled a criminal. I shouldn't even have to argue this because it's common sense. You just have to realize that justice isn't completely 2 dimensional -- good vs. evil. And the same goes with people as well.
You view the word criminal as automatically being a barbarous person and fail to see that many freedoms were won by breaking laws through civil disobedience (ghandi, MLK, etc.) Other examples of innocent criminals include people who were framed, punished for a bogus crime, or desperate individuals with no other choice but to say, steal a loaf of bread.
Just because I said Jesus was a criminal (which he was) doesn't mean I am judging his character like you might tend to do with atheists. If a person is "perfect", that doesn't mean they are free from being a victim of the state and being labeled a criminal. I shouldn't even have to argue this because it's common sense. You just have to realize that justice isn't completely 2 dimensional -- good vs. evil. And the same goes with people as well.
Well then, I apologize; I misinterpreted your post. It's true, in that sense, that Jesus was a criminal. I have to agree that many great and innocent people were criminals.. Consider the treason that the founding fathers of the U.S. had to go through! But what did it lead to? Ok, so the U.S. is far from perfect, but still a great nation IMO.
Sorry for the misinterpretation. Still, though, I don't think I judged you or any other atheist with my posts (though I guess I apologize if it came across as offensive?). Perhaps you are being too judgemental, or at least paranoid as an atheist. Not all Christians are out to get you (at least, I'm not). I think my discussion with Kaneda has proven that.
Sorry for the misinterpretation. Still, though, I don't think I judged you or any other atheist with my posts (though I guess I apologize if it came across as offensive?). Perhaps you are being too judgemental, or at least paranoid as an atheist. Not all Christians are out to get you (at least, I'm not). I think my discussion with Kaneda has proven that.
Related topics
 |