Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[madmug]

Lol. The amount of christians with addictions to pr0n surprizes me.

All those Popes for a start!

 

[Boston tiger]

Can you provide some evidence when he answered "yes"?

9 in a row

 

[little graham]

Imo viewing pr0n is a waste of time/energy. When I repented and became Christian I quickly realized how much of what I was doing (and what most people do) is a waste and is totally soul destroying rather than uplifting.

I find women are better off for me watching those squirting videos. I find that I am much better off to. Thanks to those videos I truly know what its like to be a christian, a christian who gets enjoyment out of giving rather than receiving, for no other reason, but enjoyment.

Is that what you call freedom of religon? You're free to twist it your way and i'm free to twist it my way?

 

[RobbieGray17]

Imo viewing pr0n is a waste of time/energy. When I repented and became Christian I quickly realized how much of what I was doing (and what most people do) is a waste and is totally soul destroying rather than uplifting.

I'm an atheist and I agree with you. Doesn't hide the fact that so many christians have problems with addiction to pornography. I don't need to become a christian to realize that.

One is energy depleting
The other is energy gaining.

 

[skilts]

Imo viewing pr0n is a waste of time/energy. When I repented and became Christian I quickly realized how much of what I was doing (and what most people do) is a waste and is totally soul destroying rather than uplifting.

How are the opposable thumb grafts coming along?

 

[TooFar]

9 in a row

That did make me laugh. Well done!

 

[RobbieGray17]

9 in a row

What ever you've been doing stop now!.

 

[John]

Men these days are far too easily led by their penises, and as a result are easily manipulated.

Sounds bliss.

 

[ep2018]

9 in a row

When you get smacked on Sunday it'll prove God has a sense of humour.

 

[RobbieGray17]

When you get smacked on Sunday it'll prove God has a sense of humour.

Just think; on grand final day, god loves some of us, but is challenging the rest of us.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

9 in a row

God involved in match fixing?

 

[skilts]

God involved in match fixing?

Nah, more likely involved in tanking, given previous form.

 

[Empire_Persian]

I love how you say you are not on a high horse then the very next sentence is just condescending presumptuous tripe yet again talking like I am not trying to understand the theist perspective

If you are uninterested to consider concepts like free will, the incomprehensibility of God, divine justice, eternity, etc. then its safe to say you are not interested in having a meaningful conversation about the concept of God. If you think that is presumptuous, prove me wrong.

I am not dismissing it at all,

Of course you are. Every time I bring up the incomprehensibility of God you rubbish it. You are too lazy to even rubbish it on its own merits as a concept, you rubbish on the basis that I didn't mention it before so it's somehow a "cop out".

No, it's a stupid concept that explains nothing other than dumb infinite regress.

Yeah, that is a great critical analysis of the claim that God has 'no beginning and no end'. Like I said, lazy.

You mean Judaism and Islam, which basically is a whole lot of legalism that tells followers to abide by the strict rules of the religion or incur God's wrath? That's grace and love alright. Do you understand the concept of grace at all?

If you are suggesting that the wrath of God is not applicable to Christianity, you are very wrong. If you are suggesting that God's love for his creatures is not applicable to Judaism or Islam, you are very wrong again. The idea that God loves his creation and created humanity in his image is common to all three Abrahamic religions. In Islam they have over 100 names for Allah, including the All-Loving, the All-Compassionate, the All-Merciful.

You do understand that Christianity branched off from Judaism, one concentrates on the New Covenant which is based on the love mercy and grace of Jesus Christ where salvation is not earned through works but by faith, whereas Judaism still focuses on salvation as being gained through the right conduct and following of the laws, right? One of the real disagreements between these two were on the very concept of love grace and mercy of God and because of that, salvation is not earned through good works but by confession of faith. You can't even tell the difference between these two?

God's love for his creation exists in both Judaism and Christianity. It is simply attained through different avenues (deeds versus salvation as you put it). It is incorrect to suggest that the love of God is exclusive to one religion, because it is pretty fundamental teaching in all major religions, both Abrahamic and Indo-Iranian.

Loads of Christians try to justify evil deeds and sufferings and the apathy of God in terms of the just and evil of this world

I never said it's CHRISTIANS who commit them, although they can, but the general evil and suffering of the world. Christians trivalize that by downplaying the importance of this live on earth. Yet again you miss the point, not even gonna bother repeating myself

Ok I get it now. I have not come across this thinking with Christians myself, and while I'm not doubting you have, I'm surprised because it seems inconsistent with their teachings. Both the New and Old Testament instructs the believers to "defend the rights of the poor and needy", "seek justice", "he who is generous", etc. It reads to me as instructing the believers to actively work against evil (by seeking justice) and suffering (by assisting the needy). Also, you would think that this world is not trivial given that the believers are instructed to live a 'Christian life' which has a direct impact on how they will spend eternity in the next world. Maybe a Christian on the thread would like to answer this?

 

[Baby Duck]

I'm an atheist and I agree with you. Doesn't hide the fact that so many christians have problems with addiction to pornography. I don't need to become a christian to realize that.

One is energy depleting
The other is energy gaining.

I'm glad you agree with me brother!

 

[Baby Duck]

"Religion wastes more time than pr0n" - Plato

How is misquoting my sig constructive?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

pr0n is degrading, desensitizing and makes a mockery of sex overall.

It's also good to masturbate to

 

[RobbieGray17]

I'm glad you agree with me brother!

Watching pr0n makes you feel good, but its major downsides are that it desensitizes you to reality and its not long lasting. Its the same kinda feeling as a 1 night stand. when you're young its all the rave, but when you get older, you prefer something longer lasting. pr0n is s**t.

 

[Present Not Past]

9 in a row

Some have said that in 1966 there was divine intervention (with the bouncing ball): but in 2010 - it appears that God said - "no".

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I feel like i should be insulted.

It is pretty sad that people who believe in the primacy of science over superstition and facts over faith are labelled as '*ed'. Sad and telling.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Some have said that in 1966 there was divine intervention (with the bouncing ball): but in 2010 - it appears that God said - "no".

Or there's this wacky idea that maybe, just maybe it was physics.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Magic fruit; a talking snake; millions of species on a boat; stopping the sun to allow genocide; a man who was his own father, whose mother was a virgin, who died and then magically came back to life; the ability to alter the forces of nature and physics, in ones favour, by holding hands together and mumbling words.

Sounds legit

Sorry to single you out, but the above is a common response to the idea of truth in religion. But IMO it is too simplistic.

You are saying, basically, that religion can't give us truth, that it is false because it is so obviously a fiction, an unbelievable fairy-tale. But truths do reside in fiction (whether in art, religion, or literature).

Take Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte. When Jane, at the end of the novel, hears Rochester call her name from across the moors, we do not say: "well that defies the laws of physics, as it is impossible for a voice to travel 50 miles, regardless of how windy it is. What a stupid novel". On the contrary, we recognize it as a literary symbol or metaphor, one which tells us many truths. In fact, so universal are the truths in this novel - concerned as it is with morality, class, tragedy, passions, longings - that the book is among the most celebrated in the western cannon. It is fiction, but one of truth.

The great religious narratives are no different. They are symbolic, metaphoric and allegoric ways of describing truths. Like art and literature, they often attempt to give shape to human experiences that are 'unknowable', or beyond reason, or connected with the passions over the intellect, or concerned with our general existential fear at the the massiveness of the universe.

Personally, I don't believe in heaven or hell, or the resurrection of Christ, or God made flesh in Christ's body. I believe in none of that. In fact, I am all for the critique of religion set out in the Enlightenment and continued in Western modernity. The separation of Church and State, the institutions (though imperfect) of democracy and law, the budding of scientific reason, the understanding of human activity as the locus of history: these are all excellent advances IMO.

But I also recognize that the 'fictions' of religion, of religious narratives, have the power to give form to truths that are chaotic, outside reason, and as such decidedly human. Some of the truths these religious fictions provide are inherently s**t, and even dangerous when taken to an extreme. Others, like justice, grace, acceptance of the self as constituted in others, are great.

Only a world that believes that all things must be reasonable and provable, that all activity and expenditure must be a means to an end, would so foolisly and arrogantly discount these narratives as 'mere' fictions.

And this is coming from an atheist with agnostic leanings.

 

[evo]

The great religious narratives are no different.

This may be a popular opinion with a first year post modern literary criticism lecturer but it does wash with me I'm afraid.

They are vastly different. Principally because most religious adherents dont treat them as fiction, metaphor or allegory. Do people worship the Bronte sisters the way Mohhamed is worshiped. Have they made JJ Tolkein a Saint the way they did Paul? In Charlene Bronte's time were people stretched on the rack for denying the divinity of jane Ayre?

That the Bible, Koran, Gita etc are regarded as sacred texts should alert you to the fact that these are not mere metaphorical narratives.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

This may be a popular opinion with a first year post modern literary criticism lecturer but it does wash with me I'm afraid.

They are vastly different. Principally because most religious adherents dont treat them as fiction, metaphor or allegory. Do people worship the Bronte sisters the way Mohhamed is worshiped. Have they made JJ Tolkein a Saint the way they did Paul? In Charlene Bronte's time were people stretched on the rack for denying the divinity of jane Ayre?

That the Bible, Koran, Gita etc are regarded as sacred texts should alert you to the fact that these are not mere metaphorical narratives.

I did clearly state that these narratives, when taken to an extreme, have dangerous results. Did you miss this nuance?

Beyond this, nothing you say really contests my argument. Huff and puff about post modernism and assumptions about my education or profession are mere ad hominem.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Sorry to single you out, but the above is a common response to the idea of truth in religion. But IMO it is too simplistic.

You are saying, basically, that religion can't give us truth, that it is false because it is so obviously a fiction, an unbelievable fairy-tale. But truths do reside in fiction (whether in art, religion, or literature).

Take Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte. When Jane, at the end of the novel, hears Rochester call her name from across the moors, we do not say: "well that defies the laws of physics, as it is impossible for a voice to travel 50 miles, regardless of how windy it is. What a stupid novel". On the contrary, we recognize it as a literary symbol or metaphor, one which tells us many truths. In fact, so universal are the truths in this novel - concerned as it is with morality, class, tragedy, passions, longings - that the book is among the most celebrated in the western cannon. It is fiction, but one of truth.

The great religious narratives are no different. They are symbolic, metaphoric and allegoric ways of describing truths. Like art and literature, they often attempt to give shape to human experiences that are 'unknowable', or beyond reason, or connected with the passions over the intellect, or concerned with our general existential fear at the the massiveness of the universe.

Personally, I don't believe in heaven or hell, or the resurrection of Christ, or God made flesh in Christ's body. I believe in none of that. In fact, I am all for the critique of religion set out in the Enlightenment and continued in Western modernity. The separation of Church and State, the institutions (though imperfect) of democracy and law, the budding of scientific reason, the understanding of human activity as the locus of history: these are all excellent advances IMO.

But I also recognize that the 'fictions' of religion, of religious narratives, have the power to give form to truths that are chaotic, outside reason, and as such decidedly human. Some of the truths these religious fictions provide are inherently s**t, and even dangerous when taken to an extreme. Others, like justice, grace, acceptance of the self as constituted in others, are great.

Only a world that believes that all things must be reasonable and provable, that all activity and expenditure must be a means to an end, would so foolisly and arrogantly discount these narratives as 'mere' fictions.

And this is coming from an atheist with agnostic leanings.

No need to apologise for singling me out, I have no problem with having my ideas and views tested and/or challenged.

I would be happy if people accepted that the bible, the koran and other religious texts be relegated to the fiction section at book shops and at libraries and that people read these texts as such, though I doubt that they would as they are poorly written and pretty poor stories.

I disagree that the texts are dangerous when taken to an extreme. They are dangerous when taken at face value. If all adherents to these faiths, actually followed the texts, the current situation with ISIS/ISIL/IS would look like a picnic.

 

[skilts]

And this is coming from an atheist with agnostic leanings.

Had you been human this post might have been of more interest. Had you been human, you would have been aware of the absurdity of attributing 'truth' to ideas, which you admit, are based on fantastic lies. The lies of religion have none of the wit associated with those of art, and none of their 'truth'. You are yet another victim of the 'truth' that we need lies to make our lives bearable, which seems to be the objective of religion.

On the other hand, I disagree with Kynge when he says the religious texts are poor stories. I find them to be rattling yarns, which still inform much of the Western canon. Despite this, their truth is illusory, and they lack the universality and necessity of all moral prescriptions, which is what they attempt to be, and is how they are almost invariably (falsely) interpreted.