Ohio Chatter DEV

BRF

I Wear Pants wrote: What created god?

You are a bad bad person that is going to hell!!

But a very interesting question to ponder.

Mr Pat

sleeper wrote:
Mr Pat wrote:
sleeper wrote:
Mr Pat wrote:
O-Trap wrote: Does anyone still think that I'm not the real OTrap?
I'm not convinced!

Most religions preach tolerance and peace, I don't see why that is a detriment to society. Like it's been stated before, if there weren't religion, we would find something else to fight about. Even before there was any sense of religion man was killing off one another.
See 9/11/2001
You really think if those people didn't have religion they wouldn't kill? Come on now man. If they didn't have religion as an excuse to kill, they'd find another reason.
Can you prove that?

Actually yes, look no further than all the atrocities that were committed before there was any sort of religion. Humans don't play well with others, especially ones that are different.

Mr Pat

jefft01 wrote: If people truly lived according to the NT there would be a lot more atrocities and violence in the name of a god, unless of course you pick and choose the few good things and ignore all the violence. The only code one needs to live by is "The Golden Rule", which predates all monotheism by many, many years.

Disagree. Unless "he is who is without sin may cast the first stone" would invite a lot more atrocities.

sleeper

Mr Pat wrote:
sleeper wrote:
Mr Pat wrote:
sleeper wrote:
Mr Pat wrote:
O-Trap wrote: Does anyone still think that I'm not the real OTrap?
I'm not convinced!

Most religions preach tolerance and peace, I don't see why that is a detriment to society. Like it's been stated before, if there weren't religion, we would find something else to fight about. Even before there was any sense of religion man was killing off one another.
See 9/11/2001
You really think if those people didn't have religion they wouldn't kill? Come on now man. If they didn't have religion as an excuse to kill, they'd find another reason.
Can you prove that?
Actually yes, look no further than all the atrocities that were committed before there was any sort of religion. Humans don't play well with others, especially ones that are different.

Before there was any sort of religion?

...

Care to give any examples of these atrocities that were done before their was any sort of religion?

Mr Pat

Well, there have been wars since the beginning of man. Take a look at the history of the Fertile Crescent. The Summerians were always under attack not because of their religion, but because the other tribes wanted their land. If you want a more recent example, take a look at the racism that plagued this country (and still does). That's based on not liking what's different, not a different religion. Jesus taught the opposite of racism, which shows that man doesn't like what's different and if there weren't religion, he would fight about something else.

bigdaddy2003

I'm not a religious man but anyone who says there wouldn't be atrocities if religion never existed is smoking something.

3reppom

bigdaddy2003 wrote: I'm not a religious man but anyone who says there wouldn't be atrocities if religion never existed is smoking something.

I don't think the argument is that there wouldn't be atrocities if religion never existed. Rather it is that religion hasn't really done much to stop those things from happening anyway.

jefft01

Mr Pat wrote:
jefft01 wrote: If people truly lived according to the NT there would be a lot more atrocities and violence in the name of a god, unless of course you pick and choose the few good things and ignore all the violence. The only code one needs to live by is "The Golden Rule", which predates all monotheism by many, many years.
Disagree. Unless "he is who is without sin may cast the first stone" would invite a lot more atrocities.

So apparently you haven't read the NT if you think that's the only thing in it. Like I said, if you are selective you can find some good things there, but you'll also find as much, injustice, violence, and cruelty.

jmog

sleeper wrote:

Can you prove that?

Coming from the guy who "knows" society would have developed similar laws to what we have if religion never existed...interesting.

jmog

jefft01 wrote: Unfortunately I think if it weren't religion causing people to kill it would be politics, and if not politics it would be some other difference that caused people to fight. Though saying that ours or any other laws came from the 10 commandments or our morals are learned from religion would be terrifying if it were really so. I would never teach my children the perverted morals of the bible. And can you imagine being charged with blasphemy or for working on a sunday. Ridiculous if you can't get past all the crap by the time you're an adult and hopefully keep the nonsense from spreading to the next generation. Religion is divisive and exclusive, an enemy of science and progress, and one of the obstacles to true unity and peace.

You obviously have missed the point with the New Testament vs the Old Testament, but whatever floats your boat.

jefft01

jmog wrote:
jefft01 wrote: Unfortunately I think if it weren't religion causing people to kill it would be politics, and if not politics it would be some other difference that caused people to fight. Though saying that ours or any other laws came from the 10 commandments or our morals are learned from religion would be terrifying if it were really so. I would never teach my children the perverted morals of the bible. And can you imagine being charged with blasphemy or for working on a sunday. Ridiculous if you can't get past all the crap by the time you're an adult and hopefully keep the nonsense from spreading to the next generation. Religion is divisive and exclusive, an enemy of science and progress, and one of the obstacles to true unity and peace.
You obviously have missed the point with the New Testament vs the Old Testament, but whatever floats your boat.

Nope definitely didn't miss it. Just because the Old is worse doesn't mean the New is good, because it's definitely not. Maybe you missed the point - Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

believer

fan_from_texas wrote:The Gospel of Thomas (which you won't find in the Bible because the church felt that its message was a detriment to their own fiscal cause) says in verse 77. " I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there." Basically, you don't need to go to church to be a good person. You also don't need to go to church to find God, because God is everywhere. Therefore I do not see how people giving their time, money, and lives to an organized religion is beneficial. Having a personal relationship with God (or Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Chuck Norris, whomever) is far more beneficial both on a personal and societal level in my opinion.

How familiar are you with the gnostic gospels and why they were/were not included in the canon? There are a number of very good reasons why the GoT wasn't directly included in the canon, and the church's pecuniary interest wasn't among those, as far as historian's can tell. That's a little too much Dan Brown and not enough history.

Regardless, I'm not sure your exegesis on v77 is particularly accurate. If anything, v77 suggests something more pantheistic and gnostic, which is the traditional scholarly reading of the GoT. The idea of God being all and in all is more closely akin to various gnostic movements in the Middle East, e.g., the Sufis. But being pantheist and gnostic doesn't necessarily go against communal meeting and "organized" religion. We've seen most groups along those lines become more communal than ever. The idea of "individualized pantheism" is a bastardized American creation that basically says, "I want to believe in something convenient so I can be spiritual, but I don't want to have to do anything real about it." That is an admittedly convenient, pluralistic, and non-threatening way to approach religion, but that doesn't seem to square up with rigorous philosophical or theological thought.

In short, I'm not sure where you got your information from regarding the GoT, but from what you've typed here, it appears that you've built a personal belief system based on an erroneous (albeit conveniently western) interpretation of one of the Nag Hammadi docs. You can believe whatever you want and live your life however you want, but it's not reasonable to throw out your thoughts on this as though they're accurate. Hold 'em, but treat 'em like what they are--a way for Americans to feel good but not have to follow through.

Re aliens: the Bible doesn't say (or even suggest) that there are no aliens. The Bible states that there are non-human beings that exist. I assume there is other intelligent life out there, which is consistent with (and reinforced by) the Bible itself. I don't know why that would be embarrassing for religious people unless they took a hard line over a meaningless issue (which happens all the time. See, e.g., Falwell and the dinosaur bones). Picking apart the words of dumb Christians is pretty easy, and while it proves that there are some religious morons out there, these sort of ad hominem attacks don't say much at all about the validity of the religion itself.

Outstanding post FFT.

It's very easy for the anti-religious to make broad sweeping judgment on the "inherent evils" of religion and walk away feeling righteous in their naive and narrow-minded belief that elimination of organized religion will miraculously cure the world's ills.

What they ignore is that all human beings are spiritual in the sense that we all eventually question our own existence; our reason for being and our purpose in life. And in that we all give at least some superficial, fleeting consideration to the notion that a Creator exists.

As a human institution "organized religion" is ripe with human error and folly. No one I know denies organized religion's participation in historical human suffering. Conversely it has also been a champion opposing human suffering.

For Christian believers, God has made us free-agents in a world where good and evil exist. It's this freedom to choose - faith really - that is the key to what He wants from us...worship of Him and kindness to each other.

It's the evil side of the human equation that creeps into organized religion and assists in human suffering. We are witnessing that at the moment, for example, in radical Islam.

jefft01

I don't understand the ad hominem attacks, because they add nothing to the discourse. Most of the Christians I know are smart people. Though to me it seems that they set aside their reasoning skills to believe.

jmog

jefft01 wrote:

Nope definitely didn't miss it. Just because the Old is worse doesn't mean the New is good, because it's definitely not. Maybe you missed the point - Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Nope, I saw that part, and matter of fact I teach it to my junior high Sunday School class every 2 years.

However, I still fail to see where any of the teachings of Jesus or the NT refer to what you said in your original post.

jmog

jefft01 wrote: I don't understand the ad hominem attacks, because they add nothing to the discourse. Most of the Christians I know are smart people. Though to me it seems that they set aside their reasoning skills to believe.

Some of us use our reasoning skills to eliminate all other possibilities (evolution, etc) and are only left with God as the last possible answer.

That's what I did anyway, there was a time in my college life I wasn't sure what was true/false so I researched it all myself and was amazed at the complete BS science used in some fields many in society now view as "fact" due to bad science. Things like GW and evolution come to mind, but those are for a completely other topic.

jefft01

jmog wrote:
jefft01 wrote:

Nope definitely didn't miss it. Just because the Old is worse doesn't mean the New is good, because it's definitely not. Maybe you missed the point - Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Nope, I saw that part, and matter of fact I teach it to my junior high Sunday School class every 2 years.

However, I still fail to see where any of the teachings of Jesus or the NT refer to what you said in your original post.

So you think this is good?
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Or that Jesus accepts the laws of the Old Testament?

I don't understand how you can't see it.

Swamp Fox

It is my fervent hope that religion is, in the final analysis, good for the people of the world. If it isn't, we have lost millions of people arguing about it and fighting violent and hateful wars over it since recorded history began and it seems a shame to be killing people for something that wasn't any good to begin with. My personal view of religion is that people become less religious when things are good. I mean, after all, who needs God when we can manage quite well on our own? I must confess that I'm like that. My religious upbringing was inconsistent as my parents were not on the same page at all, but when I married, I "adopted" my wife's church and am quite comfortable there. I have to also admit however, that my life, like many others, has not been a constant series of successes. People that you love die, sometimes without explanation, sometimes jobs dry up and people who were doing fine are relegated to the class those folks always deemed lazy, non-motivated etc. etc. when it wasn't anyone's fault really....it just happened. Houses are foreclosed, people are in the street...this may seem greatly exaggerated but if you happen to be one of these, it isn't. What do these folks do? Some reach out for that "God" that we ignored for years, hoping that (if there is really a God) He has forgotten our absence and will please help us just this once and we'll be regular church goers etc. etc. I think to have that hope out there for people is important. Whether you personally believe or not, it has been a saving grace of many through the years. So, I guess what I am saying in a very simplistic fashion, is that I would probably choose to believe in God and find out later there was none, rather than not believe and find out later, there really was and he is calling in your debts. By the way, have any huddlers or relatives of yours received meals or clothing or rent and utilities help from your church when you desparately needed it? We have had two devastating house fires that took all we had twice...and both times our church came through for us in unbelievable fashion, along with the wonderful folks that live in our town. It tends to soften your opposition to religion as a greedy, self seving hypocritical group of liars. It actually makes you think that God is here and works through folks for the good. I think religion serves a very important purpose in our society and should not be incorrectly tied to some TV Evangelist who has been arrested for theft from the elderly and running around on his spouse.

fan_from_texas

jefft01 wrote: I don't understand the ad hominem attacks, because they add nothing to the discourse. Most of the Christians I know are smart people. Though to me it seems that they set aside their reasoning skills to believe.

I've met many smart Christians and non-Christians alike, just as I have met many dumb Christians and non-Christians. Similarly, I've met many moronic Ohio State fans who say their program is one of the best in the country. Even if they, individually, are stupid, that doesn't detract from the validity of their claim, which stands or falls on its own.

It also seems to me that there's a difference between some sort of basic apologetic explanation for faith, on the one hand, and the reasons for faith embraced by most people, on the other hand. I've no doubt that most people on either side can't provide adequate, solid, philosophically and logically sound reasoning for their beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. There are plenty of good arguments on both sides of the issue.

On the balance, I think there's very strong support for the existence of some sort of God that fits into the Judeo-Christian mold. The tougher trick--and the one with which I struggle the most--is going from that step to picking Christianity as better than the other internally consistent monotheisms. It still strikes me as more probable than not, but it's a close call.

cbus4life

Both.

Just like any man-made institution, it can be good and bad, just the nature of man.

Though, as some sort of secular humanist, i have faith that our morals and the like would be, by and large, at the same place they are now without religion.

jmog

jefft01 wrote:
So you think this is good?
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Or that Jesus accepts the laws of the Old Testament?

I don't understand how you can't see it.

1. Jesus did not "accept" all the laws of the OT, he challenged many of the Jewish laws, just not the ones set forth by God in the 10 commandments. He did fully believe in all the "right/wrong" laws just not some of the punishments listed in the Jewish law, as evidence by his saving of the woman accused of adultery who was about to be stoned with his "he is without sin cast the first stone".

2. Your part in Matthew is Jesus talking about how he came to the world to challenge the old Jewish belief system, to fulfill their Messiah, but to show the Jews the errors of their ways. He KNEW that as people converted to believe in him, it would divide households and Jewish parents would despise their converted children or vice versa. He was dismissing the notion that him coming to Earth and people believing in him would be a peaceful utopia.

This still exists today, in most Jewish and Islamic families (Middle East where Jesus' ministry was located) if someone in the family converts to Christianity they are despised completely, still nearly 2000 years later. Imagine how it was during Jesus time when by historical records Christianity was still considered a "cult"?

He was just giving a dose of reality, not saying he was coming to wage war.

Nice try to take it way out of context though.

jmog

fan_from_texas wrote:
jefft01 wrote: I don't understand the ad hominem attacks, because they add nothing to the discourse. Most of the Christians I know are smart people. Though to me it seems that they set aside their reasoning skills to believe.
I've met many smart Christians and non-Christians alike, just as I have met many dumb Christians and non-Christians. Similarly, I've met many moronic Ohio State fans who say their program is one of the best in the country. Even if they, individually, are stupid, that doesn't detract from the validity of their claim, which stands or falls on its own.

It also seems to me that there's a difference between some sort of basic apologetic explanation for faith, on the one hand, and the reasons for faith embraced by most people, on the other hand. I've no doubt that most people on either side can't provide adequate, solid, philosophically and logically sound reasoning for their beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. There are plenty of good arguments on both sides of the issue.

On the balance, I think there's very strong support for the existence of some sort of God that fits into the Judeo-Christian mold. The tougher trick--and the one with which I struggle the most--is going from that step to picking Christianity as better than the other internally consistent monotheisms. It still strikes me as more probable than not, but it's a close call.

Best post on this thread, well, OTrap's was close

.

I agree completely with everything you said, the part for me that is "faith" is the part that the "God" that you mention in your last paragraph as "strong support" for is the Judeo-Christian God. That's where my faith makes that leap.

I agree with you completely though, everything you said is sound and correct.

You will still have some on here say you are wrong/retarded though I'm sure.

cbus4life

My question...and the one i struggle with most of all...is which religion is right?

Are the millions of followers of Islam "wrong," and they're going to hell?

Are the millions of followers of Buddhism "wrong," and they're going to hell?

I mean, i understand religion being a "personal" thing and all, but if you believe that your religion is the one "true" religion, that, essentially, means that there can be no wiggle room on the fact that, those who don't believe, are going to hell because they are heathen, non-believers, and have not accepted Christ into their heart.

Or do they end up somewhere else? Or do they really get to go to their religions version of the "afterlife?"

I don't know how to reconcile this and make it fit rationally.

Would God create a system whereby millions upon millions of people are going to end up hell because they are non-believers? Seems rather sick to me.

My favorite response to this was from a Muslim friend i had in England, who said, upon my moving away, that it is a "shame that we would be going to two different heavens." Seemed interesting, as he seemed to believe that we would both be rewarded in the afterlife based on our own personal beliefs.

But, i know this isn't the attitude of everyone.

jefft01

jmog wrote:
jefft01 wrote:
So you think this is good?
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Or that Jesus accepts the laws of the Old Testament?

I don't understand how you can't see it.
1. Jesus did not "accept" all the laws of the OT, he challenged many of the Jewish laws, just not the ones set forth by God in the 10 commandments. He did fully believe in all the "right/wrong" laws just not some of the punishments listed in the Jewish law, as evidence by his saving of the woman accused of adultery who was about to be stoned with his "he is without sin cast the first stone".

2. Your part in Matthew is Jesus talking about how he came to the world to challenge the old Jewish belief system, to fulfill their Messiah, but to show the Jews the errors of their ways. He KNEW that as people converted to believe in him, it would divide households and Jewish parents would despise their converted children or vice versa. He was dismissing the notion that him coming to Earth and people believing in him would be a peaceful utopia.

This still exists today, in most Jewish and Islamic families (Middle East where Jesus' ministry was located) if someone in the family converts to Christianity they are despised completely, still nearly 2000 years later. Imagine how it was during Jesus time when by historical records Christianity was still considered a "cult"?

He was just giving a dose of reality, not saying he was coming to wage war.

Nice try to take it way out of context though.

Maybe "accept" was the wrong word, how about "uphold" or "confirm" which is exactly what Matthew 5:17 implies.

He doesn't say "he knows that it's going to divide households when people convert to believe in him." He says that he comes for that specific purpose. So cruelty in this context is cool, but you're ok with that because it's your brand? Nice try yourself.

jmog

jefft01 wrote:
Maybe "accept" was the wrong word, how about "uphold" or "confirm" which is exactly what Matthew 5:17 implies.

He doesn't say "he knows that it's going to divide households when people convert to believe in him." He says that he comes for that specific purpose. So cruelty in this context is cool, but you're ok with that because it's your brand? Nice try yourself.

1. Notice in Matthew 5 its he came to fullfill the law and the prophets, it does not imply that he agreed with all of the Jewish punishments spelled out in their law. Huge jump/leap there on your part. He was saying he came to be the Messiah, to fulfill what the OT was pointing towards.

2. He came for the specific purpose of making Jews realize he was their Messiah and he knew that would cause dissention between Jews/converts. No where did he say he came to start wars, it was a talk of dissention that would happen, and yes, he knew that what he was preaching would cause dissention and he meant for it to since the Jews of his time had it all wrong. By Jesus' time Jewish worship had become all about money, recognition, power and nothing about God, much like some Christian churches today, and THAT was the "sword" or dissention he wanted to bring, to get that out of the worship of God. He knew he was "bucking the system" and was doing it for good. That is what he was talking about, not that he came to cause wars like you are insinuating.

GoPens

I remember my 5th grade Sunday School class. I asked the teacher if there wouldn't be any Japanese or Indian people in Heaven since they weren't Christian. She looked at me funny and couldn't come up with an answer.

Archive

Is "Religion" Good or Bad for the World?