Discussion on the FSM- keep it clean/respectful

"I come in peace!   We've beaten the dead horse so many times in this thread that there's not much left to say"

"I come in peace so let's dispense with the preconceived notions about me as that"
Nope - not the same poster - not at all.  Only a matter of time before the evidence is so overwhelming you will finally 'dispense' with all the denials and fess up to the fact that you have create multiple - and I do mean multiple - CBS identities by which you can support yourself when caught in the crevasse between the proverbial rock and hard place.  I'd call you a "loser" but I have no idea which identity gets to respond first.  How do yo make that decision - any way?

I have only read a few posts on the past couple of pages and apologize in advance if what I'm about to say has already been discussed at length, but the one thing about religion that atheists and agnostics cannot possibly begin to understand is the relationship of the faithful/believers with Jesus Christ.  This is a relationship of the utmost love, and love is an emotion.  No emotion can ever be expressed as a purely rational and objective measure.  In order for those of us who love Christ to deny the existence of God in our universe, we must also then deny Christ -- which is something we're not able to do and why this is an interesting debate, but one that cannot be won by either side.  "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16 as most of you know).  An atheist or agnostic challenging our beliefs (that is to say, our love of God and Christ) is the intellectual equivalent of questioning our love for our spouses, children, and family members.  It's not going to happen, regardless of how eloquent and factually based the arguments are against those beliefs.

You see i think i did address this point to some degree already. While i agree that love is an irrational response/feeling etc, there is a difference between the love you have for a god or for your spouse. speaking personally for a moment, as i stated before, you can measure to some degree what you feel as being real with someone you know, you can gauge response and see their actions and infer motive which can all allow you to realise whether or not you are cared for or loved or what have you.

My point is this, jesus supposedly died for your sins, you dont know that he did, the same way i dont know that he did not, your love for this idea if you will, is baseless as you cant even verify that such a man existed. I on the other hand can stand here and say that the feeling i have for a particular person hold merit, i see the beauty that resides in her eyes(lets call her an angel as i find it someone befitting in the context of this thread :)), i feel solace as i hear her voice, and i feel comforted to know that on some level this angel cares for me- all that is evidence of a kind, its infront of me and because of these feelings i can state things such as, ' i miss this angel' and ' i love this angel'. Now i cant speak for her, , but i know that at some level there is something there, we have at least discussed what we feel, now its not to say there is an equal balance of love or care on both sides but you can at least see evidence for it, and by that logic i come to the conclusion that it (the feelings i feel in this case, love and caring) exists.

You really cant do that for god, or christ, you first have to prove that such a being existed, then that his acts actually did take place and then finally justify your existence, as an omnipotent being would not need a mechanism to forgive peoples sins if he had simply realised that he was making sinful animals in the first place and either made them in the way he wanted or just didnt create anything at all.

With that said, however, the Bible should not be taken literally nor should it be taken as the "word of God" that some of the most devoutly religious people purport it to be.  It was written by man, who is fallible as any person of faith or otherwise knows, and was also subject to some pretty scrupulous and meticulous editing by the Catholic Church before settling on a final version that the Catholic Church (not God) deemed to be most representative of it's canons, laws, and ideals.  Likewise, there are many aspects of religion that are the absolute antithesis of everything that Christ lived and died for.  Christ, as a person, should be recognized as one of the greatest philanthropists in the history of our planet.  His teachings and what he sought to do is something that even atheists and agnostics should be able to appreciate.  As the son of man/the son of God, these acts and teachings are divine and are why Christianity exists in the first place.  Christ did not found nor start Christianity -- he was a Jew -- and I'm confident that he would not approve of the final product by virtue of what I've already stated in regards to how religion bastardizes and exploits what he did, slaps a label on it, and often abuses it with an incredible amount of hypocrisy. 

The Bible is a collection of stories and teachings that can serve as a template, particularly within the New Testament, on how to live a fulfilling life and treat one another but it should not be regarded as a verbatim account of fact and reality.  Those who choose to interpret the Bible in it's most literal form are often the most dangerous and counterproductive of all Christians and other people of faith because they will invariably engage in the myopic behaviors and thought processes which stagnate humanity's progress towards understanding the very things that you all are discussing in this thread.  Science and mathematics are the language of the universe so to deny them is to also deny God.

Well who is to say what is and is not meant to be taken literally? who decides? thats part of the issue, the clarity is not there, why can you pick to take more of the new testament and discard the old, they are both the word of god to some degree in your world view right? I dont think everything that jesus said was wrong or immoral but i do believe his teachings are not revolutionary nor needed to live a good life. Humanity is getting there- slowly, but we had civil liberties in place and punishments for the wicked long before christ and have continued to refine our understanding of our nature and society.

I could go on but im pretty beat so those are some random thoughts.

2k

Thank you for the respectful and considerate response, R2K. 

there is a difference between the love you have for a god or for your spouse.

Absolutely.  You somewhat misinterpreted the analogy by either not paying full attention to the semantics or the connotations, but I'll get to that later.

speaking personally for a moment, as i stated before, you can measure to some degree what you feel as being real with someone you know, you can gauge response and see their actions and infer motive which can all allow you to realise whether or not you are cared for or loved or what have you.

Many Christians believe that they can "gauge response and see [God/Christ's] actions" as well as infer motive...within reason.  There is no good Christian or person of faith who will ever claim that they fully understand God's methods and motives because if we could, then he wouldn't be much of a God.  This is where faith comes into play in a manner that doesn't deviate from the analogy I used in my prior post.  Remember that we can have faith or even lose it in our fellow man -- including spouses, children, friends, family members, employees, coworkers etc.  If I have a very reliable friend, I have faith in that person to do the right thing when push comes to shove; if I have an employee who excels at their job, I have faith in that person to continue to do a good job and even to do it better than some of my other employees; as fans of our respective football teams, we have faith in our organizations to make the right decisions to continue to place our teams in contention for the playoffs and the Super Bowl.  While these things can all be measured, quantified, criticized and observed they nevertheless require a degree of faith to be shown in order for the relationships to be genuine and fulfilling.  For a Christian or person of faith, there are many things in the material and spiritual world which can similarly be measured, quantified, criticized and observed. 

I am a very atypical Christian, one who is spiritual but not religious.  If you really paid attention to my post on the other page, I'm speaking up on both sides of this issue.  One of the strongest arguments made by atheists and agnostics alike is that they can point to the observations of the faithful and dismiss them as nothing more than attempting to falsely attribute and assign certain events to coincidence and superstition.  I get that.  Going back to my analogy: remember that by questioning the belief system of those who believe in God and Christ with all of their heart, mind, and soul you are still attempting to do the same thing as questioning their faith/love/belief in their loved ones.  It has nothing to do with the differences in the type of relationship that each one presents, which is the point that I think you missed, but has everything to do with the strength and quality of the realtionships that are already in place.  Many Christians would take offense to it much like all of us (Christian or otherwise) would take offense to someone telling us that our wives are cheating on us and living a secret life as dishonorable and contemptible human beings.  It would take far more than another person's unfounded claims against our loved ones to get us to stop loving them or to terminate our relationships with them.  

My point is this, jesus supposedly died for your sins, you dont know that he did, the same way i dont know that he did not, your love for this idea if you will, is baseless as you cant even verify that such a man existed.
   
One can believe something without knowing it as 100% indisputable fact.  Think about the qualifying statement "I believe that [such and such] is true" or "...that [so and so] is right".  To use a personal example: when my credibility was destroyed on the Steelers board (I just post on the NFL General board and other boards now) based on my escalating reactions to the attacks of trolls against the tragic death of my wife and against my character, there were people on here who believed the lies of those trolls and who even believed that I don't actually own my own business despite the fact that I can prove otherwise.  Believing (or not believing, in the case of atheists and agnostics) does not always seamlessly equate to "knowing".  I cannot prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists but you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that He doesn't.  You could at least attempt to disprove the God of the Bible and would have very legitimate arguments against it but unless I'm mistaken, since I wasn't around for the genesis of this debate (pun intended), that's not what is being disputed here.  If it is, then I've wasted a lot of words already and will simply direct you back to my previous post and what I had to say about the Bible. 

On to the second part of what I quoted above: Jesus Christ's existence, at least as a man, can most certainly be verified.  Proving that he is the son of God or that he was/is in any way divine is something else entirely.  I can't prove that he is, you can't prove that he isn't.  This leaves us at a stalemate where all we can do is question the belief system's of one another.  Some of the members of this messageboard can believe that I'm a trench coat wearing, dual semi-automatic toting lunatic with 50 aliases who lives in a tent in the middle of nowhere and uses a solar powered computer to post on this messageboard, but that doesn't make it true. 

as an omnipotent being would not need a mechanism to forgive peoples sins if he had simply realised that he was making sinful animals in the first place and either made them in the way he wanted or just didnt create anything at all.

I'd question the omnipotency of God and it looks like MaineofSteel has already done as much so for now I'll defer to whatever comments he's made until or unless I have to make my own.  Even the Biblical God knows that He isn't infallible with His creation or He wouldn't have sent the flood, done what He did with the Tower of Babel, wiped out Soddom and Gomorrah, or even promised apocalypse to human kind (Book of Revelations).  This does not prove that He was not The Creator or at least "a" creator -- this is for another post. 

Well who is to say what is and is not meant to be taken literally? who decides? thats part of the issue, the clarity is not there,
      
Agreed.  I said as much in my first post and won't deviate from that.  Remember that the Bible was written by man, who is fallible, eons ago and that it has since been repeatedly translated between many languages and cultures where expressions, colloquialisms, and even depictions of certain occurrences were described in the language of the time.  Go back to the era of Babe Ruth, to make this relevant to sports, and remember how he was glamorized by the media in the absence of television with descriptions of his arm being like a cannon and running like a deer.  Does this mean that those descriptions should be taken literally?  If I made a post stating that "Terrell Suggs is an animal", should that be interpreted 2000 years from now (or even presently) that he literally ran around on all fours with a tail and claws?  When a relatively primitive culture is observing Biblical events, the best they can do is attempt to describe those events in a way that makes sense within their limited understanding.  If I time-warped myself back to the age of Moses and mowed down all of those Egyptians with grenades, bombs, and machine guns I would probably be viewed as some sort of "god" as well: spewing fire from the sky to rain upon Egypt while unleashing a barrage of "killer locusts" that zipped through the flesh to penetrate organs.

I dont think everything that jesus said was wrong or immoral but i do believe his teachings are not revolutionary nor needed to live a good life.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything that Jesus said to be wrong or immoral...but wait a minute, you just stated that he said something which means he has to have existed otherwise this whole part is irrelevant.  That part is tongue-in-cheek.  For the time in which they occurred, Jesus' teachings were most certainly revolutionary or he wouldn't have been persecuted and crucified for them.  Are they necessary to live a good life?  Yes and no.  Jesus was a philanthopist whose teachings and practices are not at all revolutionary by today's standards and are, as I stated, a useful template in how to live and give.  A person can choose to live a life this way without ever knowing anything about Jesus or the Bible though, which is where your statement is 100% correct.  Where one of the many hypocrisies of Christianity comes into play is that you would be judged for being an atheist or agnostic, or judged at all for that matter, but I judge evaluate someone based on the quality of their character and the quality of a person's character is demonstrated by their actions, values, and behavior -- not their religious beliefs.  

The truth that you all seek lies somewhere between the Biblical extreme and the atheist perspective.  If someone wouldn't mind providing me with a synopsis of what triggered this debate and what it is ultimately about, I strongly believe that I can lend perspective to both sides or at least a slightly different perspective (or drastically different, I don't know as I haven't participated in this until now) that contributes to what it is you're seeking to achieve by pursuing it.

You remind me of someone i know Steeler king, btw its worth pointing out that you responded almost exactly the same as what i would expect STO to respond with, you just did it in a more sophisticated and frankly verbose way. You presume a lot and i feel as though you miss the contradictions in your own posts, you cant really play both sides of the fence on this issue, you can appreciate both sides i guess. now to validate my observations made in this paragraph.

For a Christian or person of faith, there are many things in the material and spiritual world which can similarly be measured, quantified, criticized and observed. 

name them, dont just use ambigious references. by the way, read the previous STO posts...he does the same thing.

I am a very atypical Christian, one who is spiritual but not religious.

Bi-polar?

If you really paid attention to my post on the other page, I'm speaking up on both sides of this issue.

Again with the subtle insults, you do this a lot dont you?

It has nothing to do with the differences in the type of relationship that each one presents, which is the point that I think you missed, but has everything to do with the strength and quality of the realtionships that are already in place.  Many Christians would take offense to it much like all of us (Christian or otherwise) would take offense to someone telling us that our wives are cheating on us and living a secret life as dishonorable and contemptible human beings.  It would take far more than another person's unfounded claims against our loved ones to get us to stop loving them or to terminate our relationships with them.  

Dressing psuedo-logic up as logic doesnt mean it suddenly becomes a logical argument. you infact missed my point, and you didnt defend the distinctions i was attempting to make, oh and then you did the same thing as above, you need to define what it is that you are referring to, not just make general sweeping statements.

The difference in the relationships is one that simply is corporeally (not even sure if thats a word but you get the point) observable and one that is not, the former holds more weight, you can infer intent and attatch emotions to actions that you can clearly see from the other person, you cant do that for god, as you cant even see him, this is not a complex point at all. its incredibly simple, yes you could state that gods love is apparent in every sunset or some excrement like that but the fact remains; you can not see gods love, nor can you verify his existence, so yes you are employing faith but the love of a spouse is NOT the same as the love you think you have for a being you dont know exists.

One can believe something without knowing it as 100% indisputable fact.

Right, in science we say evolution is fact but no one, as far as i am aware, would say that it can NOT be falsified, it could, we just have no evidence to suggest that, that is the case.

To use a personal example: when my credibility was destroyed on the Steelers board (I just post on the NFL General board and other boards now

Oh for the love of christ. that was tongue in cheek.

I cannot prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists but you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that He doesn't.  You could at least attempt to disprove the God of the Bible and would have very legitimate arguments against it but unless I'm mistaken, since I wasn't around for the genesis of this debate (pun intended), that's not what is being disputed here.  If it is, then I've wasted a lot of words already and will simply direct you back to my previous post and what I had to say about the Bible. 

Ok this crap right here really does get to me. i dont mean to offend you but i have heard this drivle for years now. the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, i am not stating that a god or such entitity CAN NOT exists, im saying that it is highly impropable that your god exists, because he is far to...well...synthetic, morally bankrupt, not worth worshipping and well...stupid. the majority of my arguments have centered around such a being not being worthy of reverence. ( pointing to gods plans etc)

On to the second part of what I quoted above: Jesus Christ's existence, at least as a man, can most certainly be verified.

it can be verified but it has not been verified..to this day no records of such a man have been discovered and verified, now unless something has changed in the last 12 months...im pretty sure im right there.

  Proving that he is the son of God or that he was/is in any way divine is something else entirely.  I can't prove that he is, you can't prove that he isn't.  This leaves us at a stalemate where all we can do is question the belief system's of one another.  Some of the members of this messageboard can believe that I'm a trench coat wearing, dual semi-automatic toting lunatic with 50 aliases who lives in a tent in the middle of nowhere and uses a solar powered computer to post on this messageboard, but that doesn't make it true. 

Ok those two paragraphs ( the one i quoted and the one above that) are drenched in narcissism, you arent arguing god here buddy, you are defendind yourself, and are doing a poor job at masking that motive.

This does not prove that He was not The Creator or at least "a" creator -- this is for another post. 

Again i got no real discourse with MoS on the issue of god not being omnipotent, which is kind of a new take on the whole god thing for me. as for the quoted section...you here are missing the point of me raising that issue...irony huh? as i stated earlier in this response, it was about attempting to prove that god is unworthy of reverence not that he did not exist, the premise i asserted has to concede that such a being does in fact exist and then goes on to convey why said entity is a profound sadistic tyrant.

Agreed.  I said as much in my first post and won't deviate from that.  Remember that the Bible was written by man, who is fallible, eons ago and that it has since been repeatedly translated between many languages and cultures where expressions, colloquialisms, and even depictions of certain occurrences were described in the language of the time.  Go back to the era of Babe Ruth, to make this relevant to sports, and remember how he was glamorized by the media in the absence of television with descriptions of his arm being like a cannon and running like a deer.  Does this mean that those descriptions should be taken literally?  If I made a post stating that "Terrell Suggs is an animal", should that be interpreted 2000 years from now (or even presently) that he literally ran around on all fours with a tail and claws?  When a relatively primitive culture is observing Biblical events, the best they can do is attempt to describe those events in a way that makes sense within their limited understanding.  If I time-warped myself back to the age of Moses and mowed down all of those Egyptians with grenades, bombs, and machine guns I would probably be viewed as some sort of "god" as well: spewing fire from the sky to rain upon Egypt while unleashing a barrage of "killer locusts" that zipped through the flesh to penetrate organs.

Ok this entire paragraph was not needed, you agree with my point, thats all you had to really say, or you could have defended why you took the bible as a source of morality and took it to be gods word if you chose to take such positions.

For the time in which they occurred, Jesus' teachings were most certainly revolutionary or he wouldn't have been persecuted and crucified for them.

bah! we dont even know he existed, let alone whether or not he was crucified and had a spear shoved in him. Furthermore, a lot of his teachings were regurgitated teachings, take the buddha or even confucius. they both spoke of the golden rule an echoed many of the same sentiments, as for jesus' direct teachings, the dude sat around supposedly condoning slavery, not telling people to take slaves per se but on how to discipline them or what is morally ok to do...THATS NOT MORALE, the morale thing to do is to tell them to stop taking slaves. look, go search for quote of jesus, i dont want to quote mine, but they are out there, if he existed he wouldnt be a bad guy or terrible guy but he isnt unique, nor even the pinnacle of morality.

A person can choose to live a life this way without ever knowing anything about Jesus or the Bible though, which is where your statement is 100% correct.  Where one of the many hypocrisies of Christianity comes into play is that you would be judged for being an atheist or agnostic, or judged at all for that matter, but I judge evaluate someone based on the quality of their character and the quality of a person's character is demonstrated by their actions, values, and behavior -- not their religious beliefs. 

Damn it dude...so you essentially agree with me, why all the fluff if all you really needed to say was ' jesus was a cool guy, who was unique, i wont say why but trust me, he was revolutionary. i agree with your underlying point however, off i go to be a christian and in essence support the notion that someone can be a good person but go to hell because they dont deem the frankly laughable pieces of evidence that has been brought forth thus far to be sufficient in thinking such a diety exists'.

The truth that you all seek lies somewhere between the Biblical extreme and the atheist perspective.  If someone wouldn't mind providing me with a synopsis of what triggered this debate and what it is ultimately about, I strongly believe that I can lend perspective to both sides or at least a slightly different perspective (or drastically different, I don't know as I haven't participated in this until now) that contributes to what it is you're seeking to achieve by pursuing it.

Sigh, and you end this post with a very lofty statement...

as for how this started sto, i mean gos, i mean sk...( i can have fun too right?) it is what it is, a discussion on religion, its pros and cons, whether or not its good for society and basically all that jazz, it started because i didnt want to soil another thread with all this so we decided to make a new thread dedicated to this topic. the goal is simple- to understand why we think what we think and free some minds while we are at it :)

as always- i didnt read over this crap, i just type, so if something doesnt make senes- let me know and ill try clarify it for you, or i guess mano can go through it and tell me how poor my grammar is.

2k

n.b that took forever to read damn it.

I'm going to have to address your last post another day R2K.  I picked up some kind of flu bug the other day and I'm not writing with the same degree of clarity that I usually do.  There are things about my last post that I felt like I could have explained better or phrased differently after I reread it but it was already extremely long and because my brain is fried, it was senseless to make an additional one.  I apologize if you felt like you were being subtely insulted too as that was not at all my intent.  Some of that might have less to do with me not being able to phrase things clearly today than it does with your perceptions of who I am and what I'm all about.  The same can be said of your impression that my posts are being made with the intent of defending myself against events that transpired nearly four years ago.  That's some pretty shoddy detective work to assign false motives to an entire discourse based on a couple of personal analogies.   

I'll close this out for now by stating that there's nothing wrong with supporting certain aspects of both sides of an issue -- it doesn't mean that I'm on the fence, waffling, or anything of the sort.  This is where my comment about being spiritual but not religious comes into play along with my closing comment about the truth(s) that you all are seeking being somewhere between the Biblical extreme and atheist or agnostic extreme.  I've already explained the rest in stating how I feel about the literal interpretations of the Bible so you'll get a more succinct (and clearer) response tomorrow.

Damn.  If I could have posted just one minute sooner STO we might finally be able to offer some proof that we're not the same person.  Posting one minute apart doesn't bode well for us against the conspiracy theorists and naysayers but it at least heightens the entertainment value. 

Again i got no real discourse with MoS on the issue of god not being omnipotent, which is kind of a new take on the whole god thing for me

MoS said:

I find it very similar to the God is omniscient arguement.  As I said before, He is not.  There are definately things He cannot do, so, by strict definition omniscience is out.

just to keep the kitchen clean, I was talking omniscience, not omnipotence.  Although both are closely related, omnipotence allows for the Diety's personal reflections to weigh in on the mix. (will not lie, steal etc ... by It's very nature) Omniscience is the Diety's ability to do anything it wants because it can, but is uncontrolled in the dispensation of that power . 



MoS

Jesus Christ's existence, at least as a man, can most certainly be verified.

Actually, it can't.  It is not really in question.  Most scholars believe there was a man of note called Jesus around the time of the Bible, but they can not definitively "verify" his existence.  There is very little mention of Jesus in any ancient texts that are not the Bible.  The texts that do appear to make mention of him are vague and many are contested.

I said it early in this thread and I'll say it again...I believe that Jesus existed and the vast majority of academia agrees with that belief, but it is not a 100% certainty.

your love for this idea if you will, is baseless as you cant even verify that such a man existed.

Not that it matters, but ..There are those who disagree ... and can historically support their findings.

link  link



MoS

yeh thats evidence, poor evidence, i refer you to manos post on the subject, that will hopefully elucidate whether or not jesus has actually been verified to exist.

2k

Not that it matters, but ..There are those who disagree ... and can historically support their findings.

link  link

Oh goodness...I really didn't want to get into this, but since 2k dragged me into it, here goes.  For the record, AGAIN, I believe that a man named Jesus actually existed, however, you asked for it.

LINK

This essay will explain pretty thoroughly why the sources used in your two links are not particularly valid as any kind of "proof" of his existence.  Not one of the historical figures who mention the name of Jesus, whether it was Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus or any other you might find, had even been born before Jesus reportedly died.  This means that not one of them ever actually witnessed this man themselves but is only going off of hearsay evidence of his existence.

Are they closer to the source?  Absolutely, but they weren't there.

not one of them ever actually witnessed this man themselves but is only going off of hearsay evidence of his existence.

Who speaks off of hearsay evidence about someone who never existed ?  Why would they be having the converstaion at all if the events never happened ? There would be nothing to discuss, as it never happened to have a discussion about .. yes ? If you, personally, are not at a specific event to eyewitness it, does that mean it did not happen ? 

Of course not, it just means you do not trust the source...  a continuing problem between the believer and non.  I understand completely your unwillingess to accept information unconfirmed by first person accounts.  I do not understand how first person accounts can be the only evidence one would accept. 
MoS

Who speaks off of hearsay evidence about someone who never existed ?

EVERY SINGLE OTHER RELIGION THAT HAS EVER BEEN FORMED!!!

Seriously, MoS...do you believe in Zeus?  Or Hercules?  Or Dionysus?  Many people over generations spoke of these beings as though they existed but nobody ever witnessed them.  So, just because they were spoken of or talked about is enough for me to say that they must have existed?

Why would they be having the converstaion at all if the events never happened ? There would be nothing to discuss, as it never happened to have a discussion about .. yes ?

See above...

If you, personally, are not at a specific event to eyewitness it, does that mean it did not happen ? 

Of course not.  However, the person writing an historical account of that event can't be considered reliable if he wasn't even alive during that event.  Especially in a time when there was no way to record events reliably to begin with!

I do not understand how first person accounts can be the only evidence one would accept.

Like I have said, I accept the fact that Jesus existed.  This isn't me telling you he didn't exist.  However, to your point, I would certainly be more accepting of it if there was some sort of physical evidence of him.  The Romans kept pretty good records of their executions, why isn't he listed among them?  He was, according the Bible, quite the rabble rouser, so why is there not more written about him in the Roman historical records of the day?

However, it can also be said that the further you envelope yourself in the Christian view, ie: read what is written, listen to your soul and subjectively respond to Christian tenets, it would be easier to stay on the path, especially in the hard times, than to rely on only one man, yourself, to keep on constant vigilance towards God and our fellow man.

Haven't read much after this post so if anyone addressed it and I missed it I apologize but the undelined portion is meaningful to me.

For Information Purposes only:

I am 41 years old:

Father - deceased age 30
Mother - deceased age 57
Sister - living (43)
Maternal grandmother - deceased age 65
Maternal grandfather - deceased age 57
Paternal grandmother - deceased age 65
Paternal grandfather - deceased age 58
Maternal Uncle - deceased age 59
Maternal Uncle - deceased age 56
Maternal Uncle - living (58)
Paternal Uncle - deceased age 18
Paternal Aunt - living (58)
Paternal Aunt - living (61)

Please don't mistake this for an attempt at pity or condolences of any kind. That's not the case. I am very lucky to have a wife and two beautiful boys who fill my life with joy but I have suffered my share of loss and I'd by lying if I said I didn't look at other people and resent the years they were able to spend with their family members.

70% of my immediate family has passed prematurely and after every one one of those losses invariably someone has always said "God had a plan" or "God won't give you anything you can't handle" or "God works in mysterious ways".

Now I was raised to believe in God. It was very important to my Mom and she was a firm believer. We didn't discuss it much after I became an adult because she saw my views as some kind of failure on her part. But even at 11 years old it wasn't hard for me to question "God's wisdom". When my father passed in a plane crash a family member said, "God needed a pilot". My immediate response was, "Did he need him more than I needed a Dad?".

It wasn't some kind of "statement". It was a completely natural response and as the years have gone by and the losses mounted (including several close friends prematurely) I've just found it to be inconceivable that it was anything more than just really bad luck.

For some I think God is the glue that holds them together. He's the answer when there are no other answers and the thought that reuniting with lossed loved ones in another place is an alternative to accepting they are gone and only their memories remain. To those in here and everywhere all I can say is I'm jealous. I wish I could believe those things. I wish I could lean on all those things when times are tough - even on really bad days.

I think I can speak for Mano, RR and 2k when I say those of us who don't believe aren't making the choice to do so. IMO our brains are just wired differently. They don't allow for faith in something they don't see. There isn't a button when pushed that allows us to believe in the things others so easily accept as fact.

I have a very good friend who is convinced I will one day go to church with him. He knows my background and says he prays for me everyday. He says God as assigned him the task of making me a christian (in so many words) and my response to him is always the same. "Michael, that's a wonderful story but I can't just flip a switch and make my brain work differently so by all means if you have some proof I'd love to see it one day. Nothing would make me happier than the belief that I will one day see my loved ones."

And that's the truth. I welcome, almost yearn to be wrong. My father was gone 30 years in March and I still shed tears when I think of him at times (not all the time). I don't read everything in here looking for something to disagree with. I'm waiting for someone to convince me to follow them. Unfortunately I just don't see it as a possibility.

Not sure where I'm going with this. Don't even need a response. Normally I'm just a lurker and this time I thought I'd offer some perspective. For the most part this thread has been very respectable. I appreciate that and I hope that the believers (sorry if its a poor word choice) can recognize that at least one of the members of the opposite side in here's wishes they could see things differently.

Wow, beach.  I've said it before, but it should be repeated...I really wish you would contribute more to this thread!

Nothing would make me happier than the belief that I will one day see my loved ones."

And that's the truth. I welcome, almost yearn to be wrong. My father was gone 30 years in March and I still shed tears when I think of him at times (not all the time). I don't read everything in here looking for something to disagree with. I'm waiting for someone to convince me to follow them. Unfortunately I just don't see it as a possibility.

Absolutely!  I think that very early in this thread I made a similar comment, although not nearly as eloquently or effectively as you just did.

When I set out to understand my faith as a teenager, I didn't do it with the intention of becoming an atheist or an agnostic.  I was looking for verification.  Confirmation.  Substance.  The only answers I ever got were from the wrong side of the fence and the right side was only ever giving me more questions.  It was frustrating, deflating and sad, to be honest.

Like you, I wanted to believe!  I had believed and fought the logic and reason that was overtaking my mind. 

Its funny how the realization that your entire belief system has changed comes to you in a moment even though you later realize that you've been harboring those thoughts for months or years.

Haven't read much after this post so if anyone addressed it and I missed it I apologize but the undelined portion is meaningful to me.

Beach: i think we have all tried to take our crack at addressing the loss we feel in life and such, i think i did so in the last page. but i must say this entire post was very well written, and it certainly provokes a great deal of thought for me, its very pertinent and i agree with pretty much all you said.

your premise that we are wired differently has a lot of merit to it, for some reason, we just come to different conclusions.

I also would feel some solace in knowing that those i loved, love, and will love will never truly be lost to me but i just dont see how that can be possible, i can dream of scenarios that faciliate such a notion but nothing that holds any merit to it.

2k

what was your point here? i may just be missing it but your assertion is correct, that is pretty much what we are doing and are trying to show you. you didnt defend the opposing stance...

I know.  That part was just to point out to Mano that I wasn't misinterpreting your words while also explaining the analogy I made on the previous page since he had made the comment: "Not to speak for 2k, but I think you are misinterpreting his words, King.  We aren't having a discussion about Zeus and his exploits."  I honestly thought he was breaking my balls or attempting to insult my intelligence with that comment (hence the one-line P.M. Mano) because we obviously aren't discussing Zeus's rise to Olympus and conquest of the Titans.

Welcome, King...as far as I'm concerned anyone who keeps it respectful is more than welcome in this debate.

With that said, however, the Bible should not be taken literally nor should it be taken as the "word of God" that some of the most devoutly religious people purport it to be.  It was written by man, who is fallible as any person of faith or otherwise knows, and was also subject to some pretty scrupulous and meticulous editing by the Catholic Church before settling on a final version that the Catholic Church (not God) deemed to be most representative of it's canons, laws, and ideals.  Likewise, there are many aspects of religion that are the absolute antithesis of everything that Christ lived and died for.  Christ, as a person, should be recognized as one of the greatest philanthropists in the history of our planet.  His teachings and what he sought to do is something that even atheists and agnostics should be able to appreciate.  As the son of man/the son of God, these acts and teachings are divine and are why Christianity exists in the first place.  Christ did not found nor start Christianity -- he was a Jew -- and I'm confident that he would not approve of the final product by virtue of what I've already stated in regards to how religion bastardizes and exploits what he did, slaps a label on it, and often abuses it with an incredible amount of hypocrisy. 

Thanks, this I am in complete agreement with.

I take no issue with anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of God.  To each his own.  I feel that I have spent enough time and effort studying this topic to make an educated decision about what I believe, and I do not believe he was.  I'll happy enter into this debate and express my reasoning and I'll do it respectfully because I don't begrudge others their beliefs.

With that said, I do take issue with the orthodox members of any religion.  I try to maintain my patience, but the concept that any of these texts, whether its the Bible, the Torah, the Kuran, the Book of Mormon or any other sacred text, should be taken literally and adhered to blindly is absolutely ridiculous and goes against the human condition.

We, as a people, are at our absolute best when we question the things that surround us.  We achieve our greatest accomplishments when we challenge ourselves to new heights and a greater understanding.  Religion, especially at the orthodox level, serves only to stifle that development and that, quite honestly, pisses me off!

  Science and mathematics are the language of the universe so to deny them is to also deny God.

Thanks again.  I wish every faithful man could be so rational.  Unfortunately, faith doesn't always promote rationality.

Thanks again.  I wish every faithful man could be so rational.  Unfortunately, faith doesn't always promote rationality.--Mano

And I wish that every non-believer could be as respectful of the beliefs of the faithful.  

Religion, especially at the orthodox level, serves only to stifle that development and that, quite honestly, pisses me off!

Agreed.  It's a topic that I'm very passionate about and you can read what I had to say in my post to RavensR#1 as it's directed to you as well.  This is what I was referring to in the post that you quoted as it echoes my own sentiments from the bottom paragraph: "The Bible is a collection of stories and teachings that can serve as a template, particularly within the New Testament, on how to live a fulfilling life and treat one another but it should not be regarded as a verbatim account of fact and reality.  Those who choose to interpret the Bible in it's most literal form are often the most dangerous and counterproductive of all Christians and other people of faith because they will invariably engage in the myopic behaviors and thought processes which stagnate humanity's progress towards understanding the very things that you all are discussing in this thread."

I have more to say on God, Christ, and faith but wanted to clarify my stance on religion before I do so. 

Agreed.  It's a topic that I'm very passionate about and you can read what I had to say in my post to RavensR#1 as it's directed to you as well.  This is what I was referring to in the post that you quoted as it echoes my own sentiments from the bottom paragraph: "The Bible is a collection of stories and teachings that can serve as a template, particularly within the New Testament, on how to live a fulfilling life and treat one another but it should not be regarded as a verbatim account of fact and reality.  Those who choose to interpret the Bible in it's most literal form are often the most dangerous and counterproductive of all Christians and other people of faith because they will invariably engage in the myopic behaviors and thought processes which stagnate humanity's progress towards understanding the very things that you all are discussing in this thread."

and more interesting points are raised. i need to find my balls and write an essay damn it! must resist responding.

also mano, i kind of got that much but it was more so pointing towards the question of ' at what point have you deviated to far from the original message? what is the central message? who decides if what you are doing is right? basically its far to obscure in my mind, and this is somehting i think SK and yourself mano and i agree on. its hard to justify.

More on that later.

2k
2k

one that really makes me think is your premise that you can follow the teachings of an organised religion or at least its key icons if you will, yet not associate yourself with any particular sect, what gives you that liberty? does that make you christian? how would god see such a stance?

I am a Christian by virtue of accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.  However, I take issue with many of the same things that you and Mano do in regards to organized religion and religious doctrine.  Remember that Christ did not found Christianity and would most likely be ashamed of what it turned into.  One of my oldest customers recently approached me about a group she participates in that is similarly turned off by organized religion and recognizes that it bastardizes and misuses the Bible.  I'll send her an email this evening and get the name of it but just know that it is part of a non-denominational branch of Christianity.  What gives me the liberty to not identify with most mainstream Christian sects is the same thing that gave rise to non-denominational churches in the first place as well as what gives you the liberty to not believe in God or Christ: free will.  This is one of the most integral but also controversial aspects of faith or religion alike because while some of the best known Christians in history (including St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin) have taught us that there is no free will, God nevertheless created free will when he created Adam and Eve.  Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, as did Adam, and this is the first example of God's creation of free will all the way back in the Book of Genesis.  

Quoted from a Christian website: "To have nonfreethinking and nonfreedoing "robots" precisely duplicating yourself is vain and boring: but to have creatures with their own minds and wills to be able to make their own choices, and then when they freely choose good and right and obedience, that brings great pleasure for the Creator."
I believe that answers your last question as well.     

DAMN IT STOP! i wish i could put this thread on hold and have the ability to not checkit. btw, it does not answer my question outright but more on that later. ill get to your reply later, i think this discussion will be very interesting as we (mano and I) have not encountered such a stance in this thread thus far...should be interesting.

2k