Preserved Topic: Why I don't believe in God. (Page 2 of 3)

.. and then of course there is God's perspective on things...

Whether you believe or not.. whether you agree or not ... whether you like it or not.. no matter how much you deny and try to break faith down to a pathetic blind irrational system of thinking, (and the strength vehemence and passion of the 'anti-God' people always arouses my suspicion) ... apparently he is coming to kick everyone's butt. In Noah's day and Jesus time the did and said exactly the same things "prove it" they said "where is this God of yours" they said. Well, he did prove it.. they got their buts kicked ... on so many occasions.

I will probably get mine kicked too.. but God will always have my vote ... all that science, and this age of reason and enlightenment <cough> shows me is.. that man is an ass that thinks he's a Unicorn. God does not need us to believe in him to be validated. In fact it is perfectly right and prophetic that the majority do not believe at all.. Completely perfect.



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 01-20-2004).]

I think God is sleeping...since one day for him is like million yeasrs for us....he is snoozing all the way....after all look whats happening! it's not like he cares...he needs to sleep

ok...matthew, mark, luke, and john...which one is paul's gospel? i'm a little confused on your comments there ruski. and yes, there are a number of other books written by different authors out there, but for various reasons they were found to be inconsistent or not divinely inspired and not included in the collected bible. i personally find it rather amazing that books written by numerous authors over more than 1500 years all line in tone, theme, and detail. most inconsistencies are simply mistranslations from the original text or misinterpretations that are easily explained. check out some of josh mcdowell's books if you're interested in that sort of thing, 'evidence that demands a verdict' among others.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig,

I will be at your Grace Community Church on Jan 30. My sons band is in the battle of the bands deal. His band name is Worthwhile and its alternative music. Its just young teenagers starting a band. He is the drummer and his name is Gabriel. Maybe I will see you.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 01-21-2004).]

Ehh you got me there fig

I didnt mean his book....but rather his words...so yeah...

cool jade, didn't know anything about that but i'll have to check it out, depending what i have going on that night i'll try to make it.

ruski, no worries can i ask why exactly you don't trust paul's writings tho? i've heard you mention a lot of things that sound like they could be factual but i've got no idea where you're getting those facts from, ya know? just curious.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Yummy tidbits from this discussion.

quote:

---

"Those who positively claim the existence or non-existence of gods or of a god are behaving irrationally." - Metahuman

"Im not sure about this God/gods stuff....But if there is something to it, I just hope He/She/They believe in me." - Norm

"I understand religion(regardless of which god or goddess or religion) do help many people in life as spreading a wise teachings, but it also lead people to take mythtical docrines literaly and turn them blind from sience as well common sense." - Ruski

"God is one big giant magnet and we are tiny mirco magnets that gravitate to him as we grow in faith and when we live the gospel we latch on to the magnet & melt into it and become one with it." - Jade

---

Thanks for these wonderfully thought provoking thoughts. I guess the only thing I have to add is that I do not know if there is a God the creator, but I firmly believe there is a God the rule-maker. I feel that the God of the bible, if real, is not the creator that he claims to be at the beginning of the bible. I feel that an all powerful creator would not care so much about the choices of humanity, and would not judge humans for their choices made with our limited brain capacity.

[edit]One more thing, Here is the FAQ about God[/edit]


.quotes.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 01-23-2004).]

He was pretty much sexist, since Mary Magdaline was Jesus' closest companion I woul very much like to her her teaching. Unfortunatly Paul discriminated her simple because he felt more important than her(plus her teaching were too radical for him and perhaps did not match his oppinion). And thats how her gospel was taken away from bible...and alot of stories have been changed for she was supposed to be removed from many stories of bible....

all because of Paul and because he believed that Jesus would not chose woman above 12 men...

Ruski, much of what you say about Paul seems to come from a TV show I saw a couple months ago. I think we watched the same show, yes? I think you are referring to Peter because Paul wasn't one of the original apostles.

I'm glad you are looking more into the early history of the church. I hope you keep it up but remember there are a lot of sources of information about the early history. Try to get a good mix of them to get a better chance of getting a more balanced view.

Now you say that you do not trust one of the gospels in the NT. But why would you trust another that was written so much later? I feel that the farther we get from the people who knew Jesus and the later the works were written, the less we want to rely on their accuracy. That's a general rule of thumb.

quote:

---

over all Gospels portrait the moments very differently from what archiologists have discoverd

---

Really? Do you have some specific examples?

quote:

---

Speaking of Revelation, it has been discovered to be a book of past rather than future.

---

This has been discovered? By whom? This is an interpretation of the book of Revelation that has been around since the 1st century. In fact, I believe the earliest Xians knew exactly who "666" was referring to. If the number referred to an emperor, I would pick Domitian (sorry Emps). Domitian required that when his proclamations were read they began with the words ?Our Lord and God Domitian commands. . .? Everyone who addressed him in speech or in writing was to begin with the words: Lord and God. The Xians wouldn't do this, of course, and that made them targets of persecution.

quote:

---

It appears that Jesus was not the First Messiah for Jews...

---

Well, there were many who claimed that title before Jesus and many after Jesus and there are some Jewish sects today that think the Messiah walks among them. Jesus was "the one" according to the NT. That is *the* point of Xianity, Jesus is absolutely central. If he wasn't the Messiah, then Xianity is null and void.

quote:

---

but Bugs, how would you know? why dont you try spending time with Buddha! maybe he has greater things to offer for you?

---

I am aware of what Buddha offers. He tells me that if I want ultimate happiness, I must strive to empty myself of everything. I must move from the physical to the ethereal and thus release myself from this hell in which I wallow. Once I can let it all go, I will eventually attain enlightenment. Interesting idea to be sure. But how can I make a judgement as to which approach to life is based on the truth? Xianity and Buddhism are utlimately incompatible. Which one is correct? This is the task before me, not which one I *like* more. Trust me, if I thought Buddha was more credible than Christ I would be saffron clad and incense obsessed

Keep this in mind when you consider Buddhism and Islam, Christ claimed to be God, Buddha and Mohammed did not.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Now you say that you do not trust one of the gospels in the NT. But why would you trust another that was written so much later? I feel that the farther we get from the people who knew Jesus and the later the works were written, the less we want to rely on their accuracy. That's a general rule of thumb.

---

I never said I trusted any of them.
---------------------------------------------------
and thast excatly why I do not like idea of chritianity, the reason he claims to be God.

I do not see any good reason to admire him ar all...all powerful creator of universe does not feel special enough and wants to be worshiped. aye! I don't see how can he keep punishing his creation for their stupidities for which only he himself can be held responsible.

now buddha is another story, he was a rich bastard who found a way! to helped millions to reach peace and happiness without money!
at that time! now thats an archivement! YAY! (of course he did moret han that )

AND he is not GOD! hehe

quote:

---

Well, there were many who claimed that title before Jesus and many after Jesus and there are some Jewish sects today that think the Messiah walks among them. Jesus was "the one" according to the NT. That is *the* point of Xianity, Jesus is absolutely central. If he wasn't the Messiah, then Xianity is null and void.

---

yes, yes...just an oppinion and a story spread by several men....to more and more men....

quote:

---

This has been discovered? By whom?

---

do not worry yourself not by just one man...but by biblical scholars and archiologists.

and bugs, it was emperor Nero...he was killing whole lot of christians! and they waged war against him
here is some random link about him and his war agains hebrew http://www.agabus.co.uk/hebrews/

link added: http://www.angelmessage.org/pilgrimspromise/antichrist.htm


and thats to whom 666 was refered to, so yeah book of revelation=history
(I am not sure how"I did not pay attention to that part", but they some how can turn your name from letters into a numbers....some additions and subtractions some letters are certain numbers or something,so basicaly they showed it with name Emperor nero in hebrew and it turned out 666...if anyone knows about that numbers stuff please let me know more)


ohh and I remembered just now, Nero forced everyone to worship Roman Gods including christians, this is a damn good reason for christians to lead war agains him me think.


[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-25-2004).]

Ruski, your understanding of the facts we have to work with is a bit imcomplete. Of course, my understanding is incomplete too but there are several things you're saying that really need correction. This can be done by further study and reading on your part. I am pleased that you are reading about this stuff at all and I am not criticizing you for that. Keep on reading and learning so we can continue these discussions together.

I hope you don't mind me speaking to you that way, I hope you trust that I am sincere in wanting you to learn and grow That really is my motivation.

Anyways, I didn't say that there were not good reasons to think Nero was the one mentioned in Revelation. I'm just saying that I think Domitian is a better choice. But to be sure they were both enemies of the early church.

You mentioned making war against the emperor. The early Xians had no army and they did not make war on anyone. Even if they wanted to, they had no means.

Constantine was the first Roman emperor to convert to Xianity, partly because his mother was a Xian. Once that happened, Xianity could rise from persecution by the empire and it even became the official religion under Constantine's reign.

. . : slicePuzzle

Ruski - As Bugimus said, it's great that you are working to expand your knowledge in this area.

You need to be careful, however, not to jump on every "fact" you see printed somehwere which seems to support the idea you'd like it to support. If yo are too eager to disprove the teachings of christianity, there is no way you can be objective enough to analyze the information yo are coming across - you will instantly jump to the conclusion that is already in you rhead.

In this way, you will end up being exactly like the people you are trying so hard to discredit.

It's also important to remember that just because one source says things one way, doesn't mean that it is true...

Take a little more time to cross reference things, and do it with the goal of learning - not debunking. You'll be much better for it.

quote:

---

I don't see how can he keep punishing his creation for their stupidities for which only he himself can be held responsible.

---

i think this goes to the heart of why so many people question or deny the existance of God. he cannot, by definition, be pigeonholed or catogorized by such a question. he is beyond our human conception or definition. otherwise he would not BE God.

they say "God is love". love is something you give and recieve by choice. i can love you all day long, but unless you recieve it (by choice - and it's sometimes harder to recieve than give - call it egotism, narcissim, whatever) it doesn't benefit you at all. and what has it done for me? it breaks my heart, so to say.

unless you recieve love (God?) into your heart, (imho) you have no clue as to what love is or how to give it. and if you think you know what love is (like "i love my kids" or " i love my girl/boyfriend") , then maybe you DO have a clue.

we are all judged (God forbid) by ourselves, as well as others. by what we do and say, and our own personal interpretations of the data we have available. as far as i know (for a certainty) only YOU know what is REALLY in your heart, your intentions. and that is all that really matters in the long run (how you judge yourself?)

somebody might be thinking: what are you saying, we are our own god/judge? Not me! it's all up to you.

ed says: go fish

[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 01-26-2004).]

quote:

---

I am aware of what Buddha offers. He tells me that if I want ultimate happiness, I must strive to empty myself of everything. I must move from the physical to the ethereal and thus release myself from this hell in which I wallow. Once I can let it all go, I will eventually attain enlightenment. Interesting idea to be sure. But how can I make a judgement as to which approach to life is based on the truth? Xianity and Buddhism are utlimately incompatible. Which one is correct? This is the task before me, not which one I *like* more. Trust me, if I thought Buddha was more credible than Christ I would be saffron clad and incense obsessed

---

Bugimus, that paragraph irritates me. I understand your preference for Jesus Christ vs Buddha along with Christianity vs Buddhism. However, I think that you've possibly misinterpreted the concepts/precepts of Buddhism. The idea is not to stray away from materialism or physical reality to acheive happiness. The idea is to acheive ultimate happiness and understanding through training of the mind. One could easily be a Christian and still respect and practice some ideas of what Buddhism provides. The idea is to train the mind to be happy at all times, even in situations where anger and unhappiness clutter the mind. The goal isn't to leave your home and family, leave your car, your job, your posessions. The stereotype following buddhism is the eastern monks which devout their life to acheiving it their way. Modern Buddhists are everyday people, not saffron clad and incense obsessive. If being a businessmen and working hard expands one's consciousness and makes one happy, that's their preference. If living amoung monks, relieving one's self of physical attachments, life bonds, and currency makes one happy, that is also one's preference. The idea is that anyone can be happy, it's not to be a tool of the teachings of Buddha. Buddha's teachings are a guidance and moral basis of the foundation of Buddhism, but are not Buddhism as a whole. The idea is to be an individual, to understand and think for yourself. By understanding and contemplating the necessary morals, one can determine happiness.

Buddhism is for some. It isn't for others.

InSiDeR, as with Xianity, Buddhism comes in many flavors. I am speaking from my understanding of it and I tend to prefer versions that are more firmly rooted in the original teachings. If you prefer the version you described to me, that's fine. I'm sure there are no rules against that. And I was not putting down the religion by my comment about saffron and incense. I was trying to say that I would prefer to follow a more strict path if I were to embrace Buddhism.

. . : slicePuzzle

Hmm...

"modern" buddhists......

".......it's not to be a tool of the teachings of Buddha"

I am afraid that what you speak of isn't buddhism. Yes, some may call it that. But that doesn't make it so.

The people you speak of are no more Buddhists than people lighting a candle and praising the Goddess are witches, no more buddhists than "california rolls" are Japanese.

Please elaborate more, DL.

What's to elaborate on? What you are talking about is taking a small bit of buddhist mentality and applying it to your preexisting everyday life.

It's like saying you're jewish because you've been circumsized....

I never said I was Buddhist, though.

I'm no expert on Buddhism and I certainly don't claim to be. But if that path does not teach abandoning the physical and the desires of the individual, how is one to achieve Nirvana which has none of that? Is that not the state of being that Buddha supposedly attained? Isn't it taught that he was the first to find this path back to ultimate oneness with the universe?

. . : slicePuzzle

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Buddhism/budism.htm

Nice link! On the main page it says:

quote:

---

They do believe in reincarnation: the concept that one must go through many cycles of birth, living, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana.

---

This is the concept I was referring to in my original comments.

. . : slicePuzzle

Yes, metareligion has a lot to offer to stimulate your every intelligent though.

Certainly we can agree that not everyone has to conform 100% to a degree of religous philosophy to be considered apart of a religion. For example, not every Buddhist has to believe in Reincarnation to be a Buddhist, I think? To my understanding Buddhism is a way of living. Just as Christianity is a way of living. One doesn't have to let the religion regulate their life, rather than looking at the collective basics of the religion, respect them, and practice them, while still thinking differently on other parts of the religion.

Wait a second, I don't think you can call Christianity simply "a way of living". I would argue as soon as you break from what Christianity *is*, meaning what it was from the beginning, then you should no longer call it Christianity. You can call it an offshoot or a hybrid religion I suppose but it just screws with a reasonable use of our language to call something that which it is not.

Example, tell me how you can have "another" view of Christ being the savior of all mankind and still be within the teachings found in the NT?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-26-2004).]

Well what do you think Baptism is? Mormanism? Catholicism? Methodism? Are they not all different interpretations of the same basic idea?

Of course each of the groups you mention have different ways of regarding baptism. But to say that Christianity is "just a way of living" sounds to me like saying baptism is just a way to remove dirt from the skin. Do you see the different level of distinction I'm drawing?

No.

I think the term "Christianity" should carry the full weight of the original teachings while of course allowing for many different interpretations. But I think removing its most important and striking feature of eternal life granted by the creator to the fallen creation by saying it's just a way of living *this* life is doing damage to what it stands for, and has stood for since the days of Christ.

Ok, my misinterpretation... Buddhism is a way of life. Christianity is whatever you called it.

quote:

---

I never said I was Buddhist, though.

---

Ok. And.....I never said you were either

quote:

---

It's like saying you're jewish because you've been circumsized....

---

I'm sorry, that post lead me into thinking otherwise.

It's precisely the volume and diversity of 'religions' practiced in the world today that reaffirms to me that I'm better off out of that particular game alltogether.


Psst!

DL, thanks I will keep it in mind.
Btw, I dont want to disprove their teachings, its just in my oppinion the teachings are not what people seem to think they are.

Bugs:
I am getting back at this

quote:

---

Really? Do you have some specific examples?

---

yes, an exemple of the story of David, bible portriats him a very heroic and innocent person. But there have been numerouse speculations done how he could have been involved in murder of king Saul.
Also when he defeated Goliah, bible cliamed he was just a regular boy, but appearently he did had some kind of Military training otherwise he would not be fighting, since that duel was based on best fighter from opposite sides before the big battle usually began.
David also had an adventabe in battle, unlike bible portraist him as if GOliah was more powerful...Goliah had most likely dasabilities in vision and muscles by suffering from tumor which in first olace caused him to be that huge.

and Bugs I know that early christians did not have an armies. They were being more like a rebels or kinda like partisans...I know they did not have any kind of miliary training....

also,I dont think it was the same tv show we saw...perhaps but I doubt it...because I am pretty much sure they mentioned it was Paul not Peter...( I might be wrong)

now outcydr

quote:

---

i think this goes to the heart of why so many people question or deny the existance of God. he cannot, by definition, be pigeonholed or catogorized by such a question. he is beyond our human conception or definition. otherwise he would not BE God.

---

the way you say those things as if God is too "holy" or imposible to understand him with our human minds....this brings me a question, why would humans write books about him claiming this are his worlds and they are absolute true!? If afterall we are beyond understanding him...and why would we deserve punishment...

IMO if he did give those commands to us as they are said in bible,his speech and emotions are way too human and I do not see anything godly about him.
so yes I think I do have a right to ask thopse questions as you would ask anything him you wanted during your prayers. His commands are rather irrational and do not fit our modern civilized society IMP, but you still fallow them because he does not speak anymore...
or perhaps you liek the ideas and agree with them...again just IMO

Jesus Christ lived and acted like a normal human being, perhaps he was more intelectual that majority of Jews surrounding him. Still we do not know more than half of his life and how he spend it...


Ohh and I never understood the original sin....why would desire for knowledge be a sin?
Seems like GOd created Adam as an idiot a blind machine whom he expected to worship and fallow him, but Eve went for knowledge and SHared the knowledge with Adam...whats so sinnful about this anyway? and why nakedness is "bad"? if he created us naked....why is it bad to him? afterall, if its bad why not creat us with fur to cover our nakedness or something like that?



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-26-2004).]

quote:

---

...David, bible portriats him a very heroic and innocent person...

---

Ruski, have you read the story of David? What would you think of a person, a king, who fell in love with a married woman, committed adultery with her, and wanted her so badly that he had her husband killed to make her his wife? Heroic? Innocent? Noble?

One of the aspects of the Old Testament stories that lend them considerable credibility is how they describe the noble and the depraved behavior of the Israelites. Quite often, they are portrayed in a very negative light.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Quite often, they are portrayed in a very negative light.

---

then how come they are so important in bible? Why is everyone studing them?
just because of history?
or because this is was the greates leader jews had?

you managed to shock me even more


[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-27-2004).]

Ruski, why would a people, the Jews, want such terrible things written about their greatest king? Think about it, if the bible is just a bunch of made up stories, why was their greatest king an adulterer and a murderer? Does it seem strange?

. . : slicePuzzle

No, should it?

afterall look at Stalin, Hitler, Nero, etc. all kings/rulers/emperors were nuts! but I doubt that jews and others knew about Davids personal life that much during his reign...

It was perhaps written way later about him, it's usually is...
its not like people know everything about him....all his personal life, after all yes it is possible that alot of details were made up about him. =)

If ancient Greek mythology was just a bunch of made up stories, why would the Greeks portray their Heroes, Gods and Godesses in such a bad light?

So, Hail Zeus!

quote:

---

No, should it?

---

Only if it were made up. Because if you were going to invent a national hero, one would think he/she would cast a positive light on the inventors. And I seriously doubt his actions were not known to the people during his reign.

MW, the reason I made the point is to combat the idea that the OT has no historical credibility. This argument comes up from time to time around here. If you have read the OT you will notice that the Israelites were a very wicked and wayword people much of the time. So much so that God was going to kill them off once and only stopped because Moses pleaded with him not to. I think the fact that the OT describes the good with the bad is one of the supporting characteristics of its authenticity.

. . : slicePuzzle

Or simply a useful dramatic tool. One that is necessary if the goal is to convince people they need to follow the rules.

=)