god loves man, loves man not god.

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

Sorry about the misunderstanding about the word beliefs. I get it. Your take on things.

Frank, I already have the right to choose. You have the right to choose. If you try to rid the world of religion you are trying to take away my right to choose to have it.

Ok, I am getting confused now. First you say you want to rid religion from the world. Now the public arena? Could you please tell me exactly what you want religion removed from?

If religion were totally eliminated from the face of the planet...I would be delighted. In fact, that would be the maximal scenario.

But we've got to be realistic....so settling for less makes sense...but trying for as much as possible does also.

Right now...as I said earlier...I could easily reach considerable accomodation with the religious...if I could see them showing as concerned with respect for my (and the many millions like me) desire to have freedom FROM religion....as they show for freedom OF religion.

Now understand...whenever we are talking about "freedom of religion" or "separation of state and religion" or "freedom FROM religion"j...

...we are always speaking of the public arena.

If you as an individual want to walk on your knees across country to show some weird obsequiousness to your god...be my guest. If you want to go to church every day...pray ten times a day...do self-immolation...or whatever...do it with my blessings (pun intended!).

But I don't want that stuff jammed in my face at public functions.

And more especially, I do not want the people who represent me in government to constantly be grovelling to their god in order to get votes. I don't want public officials begging god or Santa Claus for anything. I don't want an affirmation of loyalty to my country to include anything about a god or the Tooth Fairy. I do not want the money of my country to contain a phrase indicating a trust in a god or the Easter Bunny.

If you want to worship this comic book god from the Bible...and if you want to avoid walking under ladders...so be it.

But I want our country...and the world...as divorced publically from this religion stuff as possible.

That is what I want.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Mesquite wrote:

Quote:
I think that what bothers me the most is the way that the most barbaric acts of the OT are so easily discounted as justified only because God did it and God make the rules. I think that when people allow their minds to be trained to accept that sort of rationalization, then it is not a great leap to the type of rationalization that flies airplanes into buildings or allows theocracies to take over governments.

I have been saving this thought for another thread...as part of a "finishing off" I have to do with someone who seems to think he is the end-all of posters.

This thought, Mesquite, is one of the most fundamental reasons why those of us who see religion the way we do can NEVER let up.

I can only hope you are of the same mind. You are a very effective advocate for this side of the issue.

Thanks Frank. It is a situation that I once thought would eventually take care of itself. With the resurgence of fundamentalism and its gaining of political power in the US, I am definitely concerned about the future.

0 Replies

So, you believe that you, in and of yourself are sufficient - as "god"? Do you have a family or people you do depend on or are you "an island" so to speak?

0 Replies

devriesj wrote:

So, you believe that you, in and of yourself are sufficient - as "god"? Do you have a family or people you do depend on or are you "an island" so to speak?

To whom is this directed?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite,

I appreciate your comments and I hope that even if I wasn't Christian I would still help others.

I understand about the flying the airplanes into buildings statement. But, for me, that would never be a consideration or even a thought on my worst day. Because that is not what God is to me. Yes, that was part of the history. But, it's not the full character. So, I guess we are getting closer to just agreeing to disagree?

For you as an individual, I am sure that is so, but I was speaking in general terms. Did you also understand about the other half of the flying into buildings statement? Here it is again.

mesquite wrote:

I think that when people allow their minds to be trained to accept that sort of rationalization, then it is not a great leap to the type of rationalization that flies airplanes into buildings or allows theocracies to take over governments.

MA, I think it is even more of a danger to to allow theocrats to take over our secular form of government. History has tought us that freedom cannot coexist with governance by theocracy.

0 Replies

Anyone, but you can take it.

0 Replies

devriesj wrote:

So, you believe that you, in and of yourself are sufficient - as "god"?

I am not sure of what you are asking here, Devriesj.

I do not do "believing"...so my instinct answer is "NO." But I do not want to short change your question. Would you flesh it out a bit.

Quote:

Do you have a family or people you do depend on or are you "an island" so to speak?

I am definitely not an island...but I like to think I am extremely self-sufficient...and have been so since age 17.

But I enjoy people...and have a large group of close friends...people with whom I visit often and exchange opinions and such. (Golfers of a certain age also have dozens upon dozens of golfer friends. I am of a certain age...and I do.)

0 Replies

Question, if I may, Devriesj:

Does the "sj" at the end of your screen name have any significance that might be particularly significant here in the religion forum?

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

If religion were totally eliminated from the face of the planet...I would be delighted. In fact, that would be the maximal scenario.

You think? I think that if there were no religions to misunderstand, people would just misunderstand science instead, creating perhaps an even more twisted image of things.

I am of the mind that the genesis, for instance, is a true telling. Not true in the same sense that "god took adams rib and made eve". That is a description of cytogenesis, made comprehendible to people who've never heard of single celled organisms and all that goes with it.

And these descriptions litter the bible. How was anyone going to explain the world to people who only know of their fields and homes? By using terms and ideas that people were already familiar with. Hence the parables.

There are older texts, older than christianity and islam and other religions that give quite accurate measurements and information about the world, consistent with modern science. I do not remember the name of the texts, only that it translates into "the scientific understanding of god".

My point is that believing is a part of man, not it's religion. It is a quality of ignorance, not enlightenment. When it is possible to shed ignorance through understanding religion, and it is not done, why should it be easier with science?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
If religion were totally eliminated from the face of the planet...I would be delighted. In fact, that would be the maximal scenario.

You think? I think that if there were no religions to misunderstand, people would just misunderstand science instead, creating perhaps an even more twisted image of things.

Cyracuz...please do not think that I am saying that the elimination of religions would make the word perfect...or even close to perfect.

I am not...anymore than I would suggest finding a cure for cancer would make the world disease free.

But "finding a cure for cancer" would improve the world even if just a bit...and ridding the world of superstition, especially the superstition that masquerades as "religion" would improve the world a bit also.

Or at least, that is my opinion. I acknowledge that intelligent, well-intention folk can strongly disagree with me on that.

Quote:

I am of the mind that the genesis, for instance, is a true telling. Not true in the same sense that "god took adams rib and made eve". That is a description of cytogenesis, made comprehendible to people who've never heard of single celled organisms and all that goes with it.

Okay...but a huge part of Genesis is devoted to "explaining" why humans are such dung that the merit death, disease, and painful childbirth...because they have offended a god by not being perfect.

That sucks, Cyracuz...and is much more closely associated with the Grimm Brothers fairytales than science or logic in parable form.

Quote:

My point is that believing is a part of man, not it's religion. It is a quality of ignorance, not enlightenment. When it is possible to shed ignorance through understanding religion, and it is not done, why should it be easier with science?

Because science keeps looking to shows its explanations as false...by constantly questioning them and constantly assaulting them. Religion is stuck in the mode of insisting....despite absolutely no real evidence...THAT THERE IS A GOD...AND THAT THE GOD IS A PERSONAL GOD WITH EXPECTATIONS OF HUMANS.

0 Replies

Sin entered into the world through one man Adam. Adam was perfect at one time but lost his perfection when he sinned against God. So to balance the scale of perfect justice a perfect man had to die without sin. Who was that man?

0 Replies

Just where do you get these crazy stories from?

0 Replies

JAMESDG wrote:

Sin entered into the world through one man Adam. Adam was perfect at one time but lost his perfection when he sinned against God. So to balance the scale of perfect justice a perfect man had to die without sin. Who was that man?

So...this god of yours took a poor innocent man like Adam...made absolutely certain that he did not know right from wrong or good from evil...

...and when Adam gave into temptation unknowingly...

...your got essentially cursed him and everyone else who ever will live on this planet...

...for a deed Adam did not even know was wrong????

And you have no problem with that?

0 Replies

Good News

spread the word

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

0 Replies

JAMESDG wrote:

Sin entered into the world through one man Adam. Adam was perfect at one time but lost his perfection when he sinned against God. So to balance the scale of perfect justice a perfect man had to die without sin. Who was that man?

Unless you're speaking from the background of some obscure christian religious cult that i'm unaware of, what you have stated above is utter ridiculousness, and should be ignored until validity of what you say can be provided.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

devriesj wrote:
So, you believe that you, in and of yourself are sufficient - as "god"?

I am not sure of what you are asking here, Devriesj.

I do not do "believing"... so my instinct answer is "NO." But I do not want to short change your question. Would you flesh it out a bit.

Hmmm. Let me just say that you are an anomaly to me, Frank. I know that you could no more convince me that what I believe is untrue than I could convince you that it is. And yet, I'm getting ahead of myself.
You just know that you exist and that is all. Am I right in assuming that? You don't believe in anything so you don't feel a void, as if you were "missing" something. Correct?
I'm just trying to get at a way of possibly explaining faith, and yet I don't feel it's really possible. Not that you don't know what it means, but I'm at a bit of a loss for a point of reference or a common ground so to speak, with which to talk about.

I think you said you were and agnostic, yes? Wouldn't your line of thinking be thought more atheistic? No matter.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Question, if I may, Devriesj:

Does the "sj" at the end of your screen name have any significance that might be particularly significant here in the religion forum?

And to answer your question, there's no significance to the "sj" other than my nickname is my last name and first initial. I wonder what you thought the significance was. Just curious.

0 Replies

devriesj wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Question, if I may, Devriesj:

Does the "sj" at the end of your screen name have any significance that might be particularly significant here in the religion forum?

And to answer your question, there's no significance to the "sj" other than my nickname is my last name and first initial. I wonder what you thought the significance was. Just curious.

The letters "sj" attached to the name of anyone in a religious discussion should set off bells for all of the participants.

"sj"...Society of Jesus...the Jebbies...the Jesuits...

...are a formidable lot.

Just wondering if you were a Jesuit.

0 Replies

the jesuits eh

pop up everywhere

and no one expects

the Spanish Inquisition

0 Replies

devriesj wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
devriesj wrote:
So, you believe that you, in and of yourself are sufficient - as "god"?

I am not sure of what you are asking here, Devriesj.

I do not do "believing"... so my instinct answer is "NO." But I do not want to short change your question. Would you flesh it out a bit.

Hmmm. Let me just say that you are an anomaly to me, Frank.

You are not the first person to address that sentiment to me, Devriesj.

Quote:

I know that you could no more convince me that what I believe is untrue than I could convince you that it is. And yet, I'm getting ahead of myself.

And of course, I hope you realize that I would never try to convince you that what you believe in untrue. How in heck would I know that it is untrue>?

Quote:

You just know that you exist and that is all.

No...agnostics certainly are not agnostic on all questions. We are agnostic on questions for which we do not have an answer...and do not have enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

I often give answers...and I often offer guesses, opinions, or estimates. I just choose to properly characterize them as guesses, opinions, and estimates...rather than "beliefs"...whatever that word means to you.

Quote:

Am I right in assuming that? You don't believe in anything so you don't feel a void, as if you were "missing" something. Correct?

Correct. But please factor in the other things I've mentioned so far in response to this posting of yours. You are making unwarranted assumptions...which I understand...but I'm asking you to hold off on assumptions until you've got a complete understanding of my postion.

I suspect some of my answers so far have caused you to question some of the assumptions already.

Quote:

I'm just trying to get at a way of possibly explaining faith, and yet I don't feel it's really possible. Not that you don't know what it means, but I'm at a bit of a loss for a point of reference or a common ground so to speak, with which to talk about.

Let's talk about this after we finish the preliminary stuff of getting certain about each of our positions re: whatever it is in contention between us.

Quote:

I think you said you were and agnostic, yes? Wouldn't your line of thinking be thought more atheistic? No matter.

Not at all...and I can tell you that my arguments with atheists often take a much more antagonistic tone than my arguments with theists. They have less chance of convincing me that they can KNOW gods do not exist...than you theists have of convincing me that you can KNOW a God does.

0 Replies

god loves man, loves man not god.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know