Let he who is without "sin" cast the first stone..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Nov 8 2006, 11:50 AM) [snapback]345518[/snapback]</div>

And I know for a fact that there is no way she could come up with this on her own.

That's why I'm thinking Limbaugh or Coulter. Anyone know where she got it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 8 2006, 02:16 AM) [snapback]345296[/snapback]</div>

Because your "bright future" ends upon your death and the death of each individual person. My bright future extends beyond my death. Mankind (non-saved persons) are doomed in eternity. It is written in the Bible, when Christ comes, ALL will bow, ALL will be judged.

These are not my words, these are the words of God. I simply believe in it.

You cannot understand this, it is foolishness to you. It is of a spritual nature (the Holy Spirit). I would be glad to explain it to you as best I can, if you want it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 8 2006, 05:43 AM) [snapback]345349[/snapback]</div>

Mark, the way you define life and the way I define life are not the same. Bettering the human "condition", their morals, their joy, their inner peace is what I am speaking of. Individuals have done this, mankind as a whole is no better off in things spiritual. Everything on this earth is temporal....ahh....why am I even trying....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 8 2006, 05:12 PM) [snapback]345936[/snapback]</div>

So am I. I do not point to materialistic achievement as the yardstick of our success, I point precisely at morals, joy, inner peace and all the intangible experiences of "spirit" that make life more than just a grim trudge from one meal to the next. Compared to 6,000 years ago I'd say our morals have improved enormously: murder in any culture, even when committed to an "outsider" is universally condemned. The proportion of mankind engaged in altruistic enterprise (Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Greenpeace, and on and on and on and on across the world) and the proportion of our collective wealth dedicated to same is much larger than it was 6,000 years ago.

Our joy is increased by the constantly growing repertoires and libraries of all things artistic, vastly enhanced by technology, so that it is possible for an ordinary citizen to enjoy, at trivial cost, music, literature, and entertainments of all delightful kinds. There is also a steadily growing joy in recognition of the wide community of common humanity that transcends national borders - we're widening our circle of acquaintance enormously, fast making friends around the world via telephone, jet aircraft and the internet. (You and I would probably never have encountered each other were it not for Priuschat, for example).

And our inner peace is made possible by having the luxury of not having to spend every minute of our lives foraging or fending off attack. Not every segment of humanity has attained this, but it's thanks to man's earthbound focus and industry that gets us there, not saying empty hosannahs to an empty sky.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 8 2006, 05:12 PM) [snapback]345936[/snapback]</div>

I won't give up if you won't. And I encourage you to NOT give up. We each appear to the other to have minds of hardened concrete, impervious to cracking (and there's a great deal of truth to that) - but so long as we sustain a reasoned dialogue we both have valuable insights we each can learn from, and even if we fail to "convert" the other, such "failure" is insignificant against the larger gain of ideas exchanged, and increased mutual understanding.

I certainly hope you recognize that my hostility toward religion is against the institution, not its followers personally.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 8 2006, 09:12 PM) [snapback]345936[/snapback]</div>

Don't give up so easily. My own faith journey, if you will allow me to use that term, hasn't been easy either. It will no doubt surprise you to learn that my father was a minister, and so was my grandfather. I used to sing in a church choir, and I lead a youth group for a couple of years. My wife is a former church organist, and most of my friends and family have some connection to the church. So, I really don't think it's fair to say I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 8 2006, 08:12 PM) [snapback]345936[/snapback]</div>

Please continue. I guess where I'm confused is about the temporal vs. the eternal.

I've always had trouble understanding why there is such a need to embrace the eternal in the first place. I've asked myself, why is it *important* that I continue to exist at all after this? Why is this existence not sufficient? (I'm not arguing the point, just asking.)

The only thing I can think of is, so I'll be afraid of retribution later on if I do something wrong now. And for me that sort of 'payback' (pardon the use of somewhat of a crass word) isn't what governs my behaviour. It's really about who I want myself to be -- my mission statement, I suppose.

I suspect that if I better understood the importance of eternity, I'd have a much better insight into why I previously found Christianity so unfulfilling.

------------

Regarding Judgement...may I ask...the way I currently see things, I fully believe that I'm (I'm looking for the word now) 'imperfect'(?) and prone to act on so many spurious impulses that it's dreadfully easy for me to make a mess of things...but I also am trying to accept that about myself...is that not enough?

I know this sounds really odd, but...it's weird...I guess I feel like, almost insulted [gulp] that our best efforts as humans aren't enough, and that we have to be forgiven by a greater power...I'm not sure how I'd act differently than I do now if I were a practising Christian, concerned (perhaps not the best word) about Judgement...then again, perhaps it's not primarily one's actions, it's one's beliefs...or is it...?

I'm still grappling with what Faith means to me, and how (or if) organized religion can fit into my life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 8 2006, 12:43 AM) [snapback]345349[/snapback]</div>

Stephen Hawkins, considered the world's premiere physicist - . . . says this about scientists who are searching for the beginning of the universe: "I suspect at the end of it all we will find God."

Wildkow

p.s. I don't think he believes in God so that is a very curious statement. But one thing it does indicate is the willingness to keep and open mind. Unlike so many here that have slammed shut and refuse to even entertain the idea. <_<

 

I have friends who are universalists (note the lower-case "u"). They believe in god, and they believe that everyone goes to heaven, because god is love and love does not torture anybody. Do they then lead lives of hedonism and criminality, since there is no punishment? Quite the opposite: They strive to follow, to the best of their limited human ability, the teachings of Jesus. Why? What's the point of being good if there is no punishment for being bad?

Simple: They believe that god loves them, and they love god in return. They believe that good behavior is pleasing to god and bad behavior causes god pain, and they dearly want to make god happy, in return for what god has given them. Their sole purpose in leading righteous lives is to please god, not out of fear, but out of love.

Conservative fundamentalists, on the other hand, insist on punishment and reward as the only motivations for following whatever path they think god wants (whether they believe in salvation by grace, by belief, or by works). They insist that nobody will be good unless he is threatened with punishment. They insist that the human race is basically bad, and only fear will prevent sinful behavior.

Christians of Schmika's variety take a curious side-path: They are so afraid of punishment, and so convinced that they cannot live a righteous life, that they have invented, and now cling desperately to, a theology which says that if you once embrace Jesus as your savior, you are saved, and no amount of sinful living or lapse of faith can ever un-save you.

I deeply admire my universalist friends. They are selfless and giving and good beyond anything I could ever hope to achieve.

The born-again crowd is merely pathetic. And the more loudly they insist on their own salvation, the more I suspect that they are secretely terrified that maybe their "rebirth" didn't really take, that maybe they didn't get it quite right, or their faith wasn't quite strong enough, and in the end they won't make the grade, and they'll wind up in the lake of fire instead of floating on a cloud with a harp and a halo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 9 2006, 10:51 AM) [snapback]346236[/snapback]</div>

Wow, thank you.

Processing.

I still don't really see the importance of the eternal...I'm not afraid to descend into nothingness again...I wasn't afraid before I existed, so why should I be afraid of its conclusion?

It seems to me that Christianity was an attempt to tell folks, long ago, that even though your life is awful now, there's this glorious afterlife awaiting...if only you'll beleve our teachings/support our church/live a lawful life...

Which was (especially the 'lawful life' part) probably a good message for the times, at least back then. But now, I continue to cling to the belief that following dogma actually can prevent us from living an examined life.

 

For me, I have a hard time accepting that "this" (life on earth) is all there is. What a waste. Evil people doing all types of evil things. Innocents suffering. Good guys do not always finish first (or last). Mankind trying to improve things...for what...for evil people to take advantage and cause even more suffering?

I am driving down the road and some drunk kills me?????

A tornado kills me????

What's it all about, Alfie? (sorry for the bad pun)

Daniel...MAN YOU PISS ME OFF! Have you ever listened to yourself. You have it ALL figured out and you are so condescending. Get over yourself. Your heart is a ROCK!

Anyway, that is what led me to salvation. I like the teachings of Christ. I try the best I can to follow them. I am a better person now than I was in July of 2005. Now, I don't know of ANYONE in my Independant Fundemental Missionary Baptist Church that hates anyone, wants to exclude anyone, is bigotted angainst anyone or ANY of those other things that we are accused of.

I have asked this before, and I will ask it again. HOW is my spritual belief offensive to anyone? What happened to tolerance. I have discussed, even argued my point with others, but how does that make me offensive?

I choose to believe what I choose to believe. I hope to convince others to believe the same thing.

For those who say we condemn others to Hell, no we don't. Even God does not. We are BORN in the flesh, in original sin, as sinners.

If you don't believe that....that if a bay is left to its own devices with no guidance it will become totally self absorbed and amoral. That is the human condition. So ALL are born to this earth...where Satan is the god of the earth. The only way OUT, is through salvation. In other words, God does not condemn us, we condemn ourselves.

We are born, we live, we die- that is one way
We are born, we live, we accept salvation, we die, we live again- that is the other way.

In my faith, there are only these two ways...ANY other way you describe is simply a variable of the first way (i.e. we are born, we live, we believe all sorts of things except Christ crucified and risen again, we die)

So, we ALL have free will. What good is it for God to have you love him if he makes you do it. Which brings up my final point for this post.

All of you Christians who are looking for proof (beyond your own innner faith) that God exists...STOP IT! It would not be faith if there was proof.

I doubt I will even BELIEVE any "proof" that is claimed. The only legitimate "proof" spoken of in the Bible will be when I meet Jesus at the rapture.

 

Speaking of The Rapture, time to fire up the vidiot machine and watch this one again. The people who created this movie were just way far ahead of their time.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0102757/

God is like a drug. But instead of too much heroin, you're taking too much God.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 10 2006, 12:39 AM) [snapback]346740[/snapback]</div>

I grew up religious, in a traditional Christian midwestern home. I have since completely rejected religion, and my biggest problems with Christianity are twofold:

1. The concept of salvation. Apparently, you can only be "saved" if you accept Jesus as your saviour, and if you do you are saved despite your sins. Therefore, in theroy, Hitler could have been saved and Ghandi didn't stand a chance. Any random mass murderer could be saved, but a kindly Buddist who spends his life helping others is doomed to Hell.

2. Communication. If God is who Christians think he is, why is he such a lousy communicator? Christ came to earth about 2000 years ago, and until very recently only a very small portion of the world population stood a chance of getting the "Word", and the majority still haven't. No Inca, or Aztec every had a chance to go anywhere but Hell. No American Indian, or Australian Aboriginal or African had a chance for about 1-1/2 millenia. If God "so loves us", surely he could have done a better job of getting his rules out to "us".

Its just all so completely illogical and, to me at least, such a complete fabrication of man, it just seems preposterous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

HA! Look who's talking about having it all figured out, you who are so all-fired certain of your theology of god and Jesus and salvation by belief, without regard to works, you who are so absolutely positive that you've got it right and every other religion is spawned by the devil to lead people into hell.

So, what happened in July (or August?) of 2005. Is that when you found religion? A year and a quarter ago? Wow, maybe that's why you are such a fanatic. I guess that also explains your theology of once-saved forever-saved: Scared you might falter in your belief so you are doubly loud in proclaiming it, and in trying to convince us (and more so yourself) that having been born again once, you're safe.

I knew a guy once who went that route: He was a sexually promiscuous pot head who got religion and for a while tried to convert all his hippie friends. I think that stage lasted a couple of years. Eventually he got over it, gave up on religion, enrolled in college, and became a doctor. So there's actually hope that you might recover and make something of your life yet. I do wish you the best.

I admit I was envious of that guy. He got some awfully nice-looking girls to go to bed with him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

Ah, central question that has consumed sentient man since he first became aware enough to realize there was even a question. But it is highly conceited to presume our existence "means" something. We swat flies and kill wild animals for sport without a thought as to whether their brief life on earth was all there is for them; that we ponder the question only with respect to ourselves reveals its selfishly narrow conceit. If a fly can perish without purpose, so too can a human being, and the fact of pointless death has filled graveyards and our history since we ourselves were beings no more evolved than a fly. Read the heartbreaking saga of the crew of "The Lady Be Good" for an especially brutal reminder of the pitilessness and cold indifference of the universe to man's belief his life has "meaning."

People have and always will have a hard time accepting many truths: that the earth isn't the center of the universe, that continents drift, that germs cause disease, that the human animal evolved from simpler biological life forms. But our inability to accept a difficult or counter-intuitive truth does not diminish its truth.

So, if our lives have no meaning, why bother to stay alive? Well, there's the small matter that life itself is enjoyable - so enjoyable that we strive to prolong it as long as possible, and devote the majority of our time and industry to making it more enjoyable.

If, as you claim, the afterlife is our REAL destiny, AND that good works on earth count for nothing, what are you hanging around wasting your time staying on earth for? You've nothing to accomplish here that makes any difference, life is unbearably evil anyway, staying here makes no sense whatsoever if the afterlife is what "life" is really all about. That's not a frivolous question - and suicide bombers follow the logic to its natural conclusion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

There you are. By your logic why bother staying alive?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

Do any of your congregation still welcome, cherish, love and remain close friends with those who have left the church? If your church is anything like the fundamentalist church I went to as a teenager, the answer is a resounding NO. To most fundamentalists there is no greater pariah than the apostate. Until members of a church can continue their social connections with an apostate with no diminution of love and acceptance, the claim that they are inclusive is vile garbage.

This is one arena of human intercourse where the atheist trumps virtually all established religion, for the atheist accepts and cherishes fellow humans without discrimination, without requiring conformist belief.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

The instant yours or anyone's church seeks influence or involvement with the government, it has crossed the line to being offensive, for by definition it is seeking to impose its tenets on the lives of people outside its doors. Did your preacher include references to candidates, electoral issues or other social matters in any of his (her) sermons? If so, such sermons were offensive.

US government (so far) rightly does not intrude on how you choose to believe. So also should the church not intrude into governance.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

And more power to you. You should have unfettered access to media of every variety to carry your message as far and as widely as you care to take it.

Just keep your persuasions between you and those you seek to persuade. The moment you seek to embed your beliefs into legislation, you cross the line from persuasion to coersion, and THAT would be a supreme offense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

This preposterous claim is made by all religions. First, nowhere in nature does such an abrupt, harsh dichotomy exist. "More than one way to skin a cat" is true anywhere you look.

Second, confronted by eighty eight billion religious perspectives, each claiming that IT and ONLY IT is the ONE truth and all others are false, the one inescapable conclusion is that all but one must be mistaken, and the only valid statitistical inference would be that they are ALL mistaken.

Have you personally vetted all eighty eight billion religious perspectives, evaluated each and selected the one that seems most valid, or did you just fall into the one that happened to touch you? Since your church and its perspective has not yet reached the interior of Bhutan, do you seriously believe that all Bhutanese children are irretrievably beyond the reach of salvation? The Bhutanese, being Buddhist, would look upon your beliefs as narrow and harsh - their view of the afterlife does NOT exclude you, while yours excludes THEM. Were the choice of religions winnowed down to yours or theirs, theirs is by far the more forgiving, more generous, more aligned with nature - the much more LOGICAL choice.

Have you examined Buddhism at all? Hinduism? Islam?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

In a matter where what's at stake is eternity, sheer prudence would dictate something a little better than raw faith. Do you take it on faith that the doctor who operates on you knows what he's doing, or do you demand that he have a medical education and license? Do you take it on faith that the bank won't plunder your money or do you demand government oversight of such institutions? Much that we seem to take on faith isn't - we've erected social edifices to confirm and enforce cold fact before we extend our trust. And where such edifices don't exist we do our own research, such as when buying a used car.

Only in religion do we throw all caution out the window and just blindly accept whatever shaman we happen to run across tells us - and then chastise any who would call the shaman to prove himself. It is profoundly irrational, and, if what's at stake REALLY is eternity, infinitely foolish.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 9 2006, 11:27 PM) [snapback]346731[/snapback]</div>

Thank you, I appreciate your words. And, as I said, I'm not arguing any points, I guess I'm just using this as a forum to 'talk' through my feelings. So, thanks for listening and responding.

My parents were killed by a drunk driver when I was 16. After decades of consideration, I've come to the personal conclusion that it was all a series of unfortunate events that led up to the accident.

It doesn't really seem to matter to me if there was a 'reason' for what happened, and I'm completely comfortable with the idea of myself as a this spiritual/biological being that is subjected to the same random odds of fate that everyone else is.

My existence -- my consciousness -- is, for me at this moment, enough. I don't mean that selfishly, I guess it's more like...I'm okay with not, in the giant scheme of things, being very important as an individual being.

The gifts we've been given, of self consciousness and freedom of action, are enough to make me uphold the obligation to accord them due respect.
(subject to modification at any time)

 

Mark: Excellent post! Bravo, and thank you. Very well though out and very clearly expressed.

Lively Chick: You really don't need to quote an entire long post in order to agree with it. Quote a couple of lines and then "snip" and append your comments. Saves a lot of space.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 7 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]345205[/snapback]</div>

Clarification...

- A singles department is a Sunday School where everyone is single. Sadly, some behave as if it's a bar to pick up someone.

- Just saying the co-worker had some things in common with Ted Haggard - his lifestyle did not conform to the church doctrine he was at.

- I was trying to say Bono is a good role model and certainly not attacking him.

- The Ted Haggart scandal is sad, certainly ironic, bad for him, his family, the church he started, but definitely not humorous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 10 2006, 02:10 PM) [snapback]347172[/snapback]</div>

Then you quote the first line just to indicate which post you are quoting. Especially when yours is the very next post. People will understand.

But I agree, the entire text was inspired.