Topic awaiting preservation: The existence of God....

I know that is accepted here that God can never be proved or disproved. Of course, I'm not out to try and solve that question. I just have a question of my own, and wasn't sure where else to put it...

If the GUT (Grand Unified Theory), or whatever uou choose to name it, were to be found, i.e. the complete set of self-consistent rules that govern the entire universe, would people still consider God to be "outside" that universe, and that everything we have discovered is entirely of his creation?

If so, that somewhat means that the first conclusion I mentioned (that the exitence of God is not provable either way) is not even a conlusion, but an assumption, as we are saying that we do not have the ability to prove him....

Sorry if you were expecting something more from the topic title

Wrayal

My Website (finally! And yes, it uses frames and is evil, but, well, take a look, it's not as evil as you might think )

The GUT would probably point more toward the philosophy of Aristotle - that God is a part of the universe rather than a separate entity. Of course, this was long before Christianity, but I don't know at this time how much the Jewish beliefs about God were known to the Greeks at the time.

I think it is wrong to wonder if God is outside or inside the Universe, as there are loads of probabilities "our" Universe is not the "one and only universe" IMHO.
To me, God is in everything, outside and inside the Universe; His brain would be the global consciousness of every mineral, vegetal and animal put together from every planet (in our or another universe), His existence would come from the global amount of energy and His body from the global amount of material.

In other word, I have always thought it was very simplistic, even childish, to describe God as a whole. It probably makes it a bit easier to understand... IMHO

I really do not know what makes me think that and where I get these ideas from. I would be really grateful if someone could tell me if my thoughts are similar to any religion; I haven't really sorted the religion question out for me yet. This thought above has been my religion so far.

Cheers

quote:

---

wrayal said:

If so, that somewhat means that the first conclusion I mentioned (that the
exitence of God is not provable either way) is not even a conlusion, but an
assumption, as we are saying that we do not have the ability to prove him....

---

YES! Thank you very much for that. I have come to the conclusion that every philosophy and understanding of reality must begin with basic assumption. For me, God is the beginning of wisdom. My entire philosophy begins with, "God is".

Every one else here in this forum has to choose their assumption(s) too. There really is no escaping it. In fact, if we were to take a look at each of our basic assumptions about life, we would be able to see very clearly why we say the things we do in these threads. It helps from getting too upset sometimes to realize that your debate opponent is merely reasoning from his/her basis of understanding. I hope that by sharing these ideas together it will help each of us question and refine those basic assumptions to collectively come closer to the ultimate truth.

wrayal, to answer this:

quote:

---

If the GUT (Grand Unified Theory), or whatever uou choose to name it, were to be found, i.e. the complete set of self-consistent rules that govern the entire
universe, would people still consider God to be "outside" that universe, and that everything we have discovered is entirely of his creation?

---

I would answer this absolutely in the positive. As I understand the God I worship, he created *everything*, whether it be multiple universes or dimensions, and he is independent of his own handiwork.

quote:

---

kimson said:

I would be really grateful if someone could tell me if my thoughts are similar
to any religion

---

Actually, kimson, that sounds very much like basic Pantheism to me. Hindus and Buddhists hold to it to varying degrees. The idea that God is everything and that the Universe, i.e. God, has always existed and always will is more a basis of Eastern religions. I hope that helps a bit.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

As I understand the God I worship, he created *everything*, whether it be multiple universes or dimensions, and he is independent of his own handiwork

---

Actually, this is an argument that has been going os almost since the beginings of the Catholic religion. Did He create everything from scratch, or did He create the universe from "stuff" that has existed al long as He has? Some of the greatest theological minds have been debating this since at least early medeival times.

Yep. The term "ex nihilo" comes to mind.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

http://www.meta-library.net/gengloss/creatnihilo-body.html

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Wow, somebody agrees with me!!

However, I do have to disagree with my earlier statement a little. What I should have said is that with this possibility, it would seem impossible to disprove God. But not for him to be unprovable: if he does exist, he could I suppose show himself to be (though does this preclude the free will of belief or something?)

Whatever

Wrayal

My Website (finally! And yes, it uses frames and is evil, but, well, take a look, it's not as evil as you might think )

Thanks Bugimus. I did not dare mention Pantheism as I was not sure about what it meant. I think you're right.

I have a question to all the inmates. Sorry if it's already been asked, I know there are loads of threads about God already, but: Does anyone think there is no form of superior or allmighty existance, and - what is more interesting to me - how does it feel like, believing this?!

I absolutely believe that there is no higher form of existence!
However, I do see that brane theory/multiverse theory could be correct - in a pedantic way a higher form of existence.
How does it feel? Pretty good actually. Knowing that eveery time a preacher drums the 10 commandments into me and so forth they are lying, and that my conscience need not take heed, is awesome. Of course, that is not to say I do not have a conscience. It simply means that I always though that the "evilness" of saying "OMG" was an imbecilic concept when I was a christian. Now I can say it happily and without restraint
Basically, it wasn't life changing per-se (death changing perhaps? ), but I prefer it, a lot. If you're wondering about the afterlife, well, lets not go there. The last thread I started about that degenerated somewhat :\

Wrayal

My Website (finally! And yes, it uses frames and is evil, but, well, take a look, it's not as evil as you might think )

kimson: To me there is no superior or allmighty existence. Until I'm proved wrong I refuse to believe in some fairy tales and myths.

How does it feel ? I'm fine thank you. Is there a single reason why I should feel otherwise ? Forms of life have spawned on this planet and probably on others too. We know that it has in some hazardous environments and that pre-biotic moleculles and amino acids are not that hard to produce ( crush a comet at high speed and voilà ). And here I am, alive, in shape and ready to go. My relatives are fine too. I'm trying my best at what I do, to learn/understand new things all the time, ...

Actually the only thing I don't feel fine with is the fact that my parents baptized me, obviously without my concent, when I was a child and that though they didn't really believed in "God" too. I'm not bitter toward them, let's put their act on the social/cultural pressure. But recently I've discovered I can apostatize, and I will.



(Edited by poi on 03-01-2005 11:58)

To get it right: I was not talking about Christianism. The preachers in question do not interest me the slightest!
For me you can reject all form of religion and still think there's someone or something actually pulling the strings. This is "my religion".
I never put one foot in any church, because preachers' sermons it always end up getting me sick (I have never been able to grab anything for myslef in their floods of absurd and irritating words) but I still feel I do not always choose anything I do, there must be something called "fate" somewhere, IMO

My last paragraph was aimed at the religion my parents hooked me to without my concent. It may well have been judaism, islam, rael, scientology, ... it'd be same. I don't believe in a superior being and don't want to be assimilated to one of those weirdos.

[edit]

quote:

---

I still feel I do not always choose anything I do, there must be something called "fate" somewhere, IMO

---

Sure, our life not only depends of the very choice we do, but is also influenced by that of the others. Therefore we don't fully control our life. That's probably what you call "fate". And as for "fatality", "fate" leading to negative events, I label that "shit happens".

[/edit]



(Edited by poi on 03-01-2005 12:26)

quote:

---

but is also influenced by that of the others

---

No doubt about this.
But I have to say my (still short) life so far has been full of coincidences neither due to me nor the people I've met, nor the wether or politics. I have met people who have played a decisive role in my life. You may call it luck or fatality if you want, but I am convinced that some things happen in a very purpose which does not depend on the current "universal and overall situation", if I may call it like that, but well on some supreme "creature's" will. Of course this is my opinion.

quote:

---

I refuse to believe in some fairy tales and myths

---

This is, of course, your most fundamental right. However I am not sure you can call religion (any or all of them) a tale or a myth, since religion seems to come straight out of a collective conscience (or subconscient, to name it right), unlike myths and tales which have been fully invented by real people to validate History.

To me, religion has never been invented but only discovered. Everybody is free to believe in it or not. If they do believe in it, ther are free to take it as it is decribed presented or in a personal way.

I am with Poi for the most part. Seems to me if there was a god, he/she/it would make itself known.

I don't agree with religion springing from the collective conscious. If that were so, we would all believe in the same god and enjoying universal agreement, there would be fewer wars.

It is wonderful being a realist instead of mythicist, no guilt and no sins.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I am going to respond to kimson's earlier question

quote:

---

Does anyone think there is no form of superior or almighty existence, and - what is more interesting to me - how does it feel like, believing this?!

---

I can start off by saying that I do not have a believe in a higher power. An contrary to what others say about their current feelings on thing being grand, it doesn't start out that way. When I was much younger I had the idea that there is no god. This idea is well and good for someone who is young to have, you don't think on it much, you are young, the idea doesn't go much further than "There is no god." As I got older I started questioning things (this is around 14-16 years old). The big question is well what happens after you die. This was a hard one to work through, because you really don't know, and it is something that is inevitable. You have to deal with it eventually. I think the hard part about thinking on death for someone without faith is trying to figure out the concept of "Nothingness." It is not an easy concept. I like to describe is to someone in steps.

1. Go into a darkroom
2. Shut your eyes
3. Stop Thinking

You can't really do #3 but it gives some kind of idea as to what it is like. Really coming to terms with death is a big thing, and I think that this is the hardest thing for those without a faith that has an afterlife. However, once you come to terms with death you are really free to do anything. I think that this is what confuses those who have a religion. The idea that you are free to do anything without having bounds on yourself. The truth is that your morals are not defined by your faith. You can have your own moral compass without faith. I think that your morals really have little to do with your faith. I know doers of great good who have no faith, and I know people who do really evil stuff and have faith. You can justify your actions anyway you want to.

After the initial phase of discovery I think that we all are pretty equal in terms of quality of life. I don't sit constantly wondering about what could have been, and what will happen. It is really immaterial. I am living now, I am having fun, I am being productive, and I am helping people. That is really good enough for me.

You have to remember, that you are not really believing anything. This discussion has come up before. It is not that I have an active belief in nothing, it is that I don't have belief. Beliefs don't even play a part of my existence. An exercise to try and accept this is,

1. Do the things you normally do
2. Have fun, be a good person
3. Stop having any beliefs in something greater than yourself

It might not be that good an exercise. The point is, I can do all of the same things that a person with faith and a belief system does, I can just do it without having the belief. You can be find and have fun and joy just like anyone else can without having faith.

Dan @ Code Town

Well thought out WS.

As well, I always wish I could be there when the faithful die and find out god dosn't believe in them.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

meh, I'm 16, and you're right: I think about these things to an extent, albeit admittedly less than I used to. When I was a Christian, death was of much greater importance. Now, well, I'm a scientific person, and a pragmatic view tells me that worry about death is something of a paradox; like wondering how to do soemthing clearly impossible.
What happens when I die? Heart stops, brain functions die, necrosis of cells, and so forth. In all honesty, what true atheist can care form a "spiritual" view? There's nothing there, so don't waste time thinking about it

Wrayal

My Website (finally! And yes, it uses frames and is evil, but, well, take a look, it's not as evil as you might think )

What are we here for then? (I know, it's a bit of a provocation)

Ehtheist: you mean WM, not WS

kimson:

quote:

---

What are we here for then?

---

Why do people absolutely want the things/forms of life that exist have a purpose ? We are. Period. It's up to you to define your own goals if you need some.



(Edited by poi on 03-01-2005 18:28)

quote:

---

However I am not sure you can call religion (any or all of them) a tale or a myth, since religion seems to come straight out of a collective conscience (or subconscient, to name it right), unlike myths and tales which have been fully invented by real people to validate History.

---

I'd be interested in seeing any form of logic or reasoning behind that statement.

I see no evidence whatsoever that myths upon which currently existent religions are built on are any different from the myths of religions that we no longer call religion.

It is very apparent that many of the things we call myth are the same documents/stories that mnay of the biblical stories are based on...or that they are based on the same source.

But we call one myth, and we call the other religion. Why? Because people still cling to one set of myths....so we have to call it something else...

The religions that are built upon these myths are every bit as much a pure human creation as are the myths themselves (even if you insist that the god in these myths is real, and that jesus was his son, it still undeniable that the religious intstituions built around these ideas are purely human constructs). The history of the major religions makes it very clear, through the often stilted growth patterns and complex political maneuverings, that they do not spring from a "collective conscience" of any kind. The courses of these religions has been determined inteh same ways that any other political issues are determined (whether in the form of some sort of limited 'democracy' or outright dictatorship).

quote:

---

What are we here for then? (I know, it's a bit of a provocation)

---

Provocation? Hardly.

We, like every other species of living being, are here for one purpose: to recreate and die.

Anything beyond that is, again, a purely human construct.


As of the initial question -

for starters, I don't think such a thing as the GUT could ever exist.

However, given that it did, I don't see how it's mere existence could say anything one way or another about the existence (or the ability to prove/disprove the existence) of 'god'.
It would rather depend a great deal on what exactly these 'rules' were, wouldn't it?

Now, as for proving/disproving god: as has been said many times, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that god does exist. If it exists, there must be evidence of it.

We have no such evidence, and so there is no reason and basis on which to attempt to disprove it.

I cannot disprove the idea that we are all actually living in the fungus-infected toenail of a giant pink dragon.

And there is as much evidence of that as there is of the judeo-christian god.

=)






(Edited by DL-44 on 03-01-2005 18:49)

Ehtheist, I really think you could benifit from not being so intollerant. You show a real distain for those who have a structured system of beliefs. I used to be similar when I was a bit younger (I am not all that old now), I was angered by the fact that people could believe in something that was so obviously false, I was angered that people could be so stupid as to follow some dogma which existed only to rob them of their goods, and to take joy away from them. I was angered that these same people felt it was their duty to tell me that I was wrong for my beliefs, and that these same people felt it was their duty to change how I thought. I was even further angered that I knew more about their religion than they did, and they would try to teach me.

All of this stuff made me really mad, it made me bitter, and I said things to people that I should not have said. I was being the same thing that was causing my anger. This was not what I wanted to be.

I can not be certain that when someone dies that they will not meet with their creator in green pastures of love and candy, or whatever they want to get. It could be that they will be the one laughing at me for my stupid lack of fiath that will damn me for all eternity. I don't know. I don't really care. But I certainly don't want to be the one laughing at someone else because their faith was a lie. That is truely horrible. I just can't imagine laughing at someone as a main focus of their life was invalidated.

If someone has a faith and it makes them happy, and it causes them to lead a better life than they would otherwise I would encourage their faith. Their faith is a good thing for them, and everyone around them no matter who they are or what they believe should encourage it. I would believe that you are an Aethist of some breed, and as such, the only place for us to find our enjoyment is in the here and now. Why would you wish to ruin someone elses enjoyment in the here and now? It doesn't make sense to me.

Live and let live, their ideas on the afterlife can't hurt you, it is their ideas, and only ideas at that.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

I am not sure you can call religion (any or all of them) a tale or a myth, since religion seems to come straight out of a collective conscience (or subconscient, to name it right), unlike myths and tales which have been fully invented by real people to validate History

---

If religion came out of a "collective conscience", then all of us would be of the same religion and we wouldn't need to send kids to Sunday School to teach it to them, they would already know it.

Gasp! Sorry WM, no excuse for the egregious error of giving WS credit for your post, mea culpa. Thanks Poi.

WM (got it right this time), I am not the least bit intolerant, almost never get angry and am far too sweet a person to be bitter.

I do have strong views on certain matters and when in the presence of others also expressing strong views, am only to happy to share mine.

That I speak more plainly than most usually leads others to the same conclusions at which you have arrived.

However, I am tolerant of that fact and it bothers me not at all.

If people are not strong enough in their faith to survive a little reality and criticism, that is hardly my concern. In such a case, they shouldn't be out playing with the grown-ups.

That you and others are so concened about how I express my views and the subject upon which I express them, tells me I am saying things which are hitting home.

Making you think?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

First of all a few definitions i found here

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

Main Entry: tale
Pronunciation: 'tA(&)l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English talu; akin to Old Norse tala talk
1 obsolete : DISCOURSE, TALK
2 a : a series of events or facts told or presented : ACCOUNT b (1) : a report of a private or confidential matter <dead men tell no tales> (2) : a libelous report or piece of gossip
3 a : a usually imaginative narrative of an event : STORY b : an intentionally untrue report : FALSEHOOD <always preferred the tale to the truth -- Sir Winston Churchill>
4 a : COUNT, TALLY b : TOTAL

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

quote:

---

I'd be interested in seeing any form of logic or reasoning behind that statement.

---

There is, as you can see, no reasoning behing that statement, as I dare mention this on a pure language (english) basis

quote:

---

it still undeniable that the religious intstituions built around these ideas are purely human constructs

---

yes, absolutely. All this shit arroud it - arround spirituality - is also crap to me. But I understand some people need all these pictures and gimmicks to live their spirituality.

quote:

---

We, like every other species of living being, are here for one purpose: to recreate and die.

---

Tis is not a purpose

quote:

---

We have no such evidence, and so there is no reason and basis on which to attempt to disprove it.

---

It all depend on the way you see any event on earth. Again it's only a matter of point of view.

briggl: to precise my view a bit further, I shouldn't have said religion but spirituality. The tendency to spirituality is a collective subonscient movement IMO

(Edited by kimson on 03-02-2005 11:05)

kimson: When I said : " Until I'm proved wrong I refuse to believe in some fairy tales and myths. ", by fairy tales and myths I designed the "stories" the religious beliefs are based on.

Stupidity is also a collective subconscient movement.

I do not think there is need for such agressivity poi. Until I am certain you have at least tried to understand what I mean, I will not let you insinuate I am stupid. Thanks very much.

quote:

---

Until I'm proved wrong I refuse to believe in some fairy tales and myths

---

I'm afraid I can't think of anything to prove you wrong and will not even try to since there's no point doing that.

quote:

---

by fairy tales and myths I designed the "stories" the religious beliefs are based on

---

I know what you were talking about. i don't believe in them either, so what's the point? I don't think you really got what i was thinking about.

No offence meant.

Cheers

kimson: I just wanted to point that your phrase " The tendency to spirituality is a collective subonscient movement IMO " also works if you replace "spirituality" by "stupidity". I'm sorry if I didn't made this allusion clear enough and let you thought I was insulting you. It was not the case. Really. I'm sorry you felt otherwise. Mea culpa.

I get your point about the collective subconscient movement to lean toward spirituality. I wonder to which degree that movement is actually cultural/determinist instead of innate.



Let's get back to the fairy tales point. If/Since the religions are based on fairy tales, myths and other bed time stories which credit shall we accord to them ? Sure they sounds good and may please some people but I need more, something more tangible, to believe in a superior being.



(Edited by poi on 03-02-2005 15:31)

quote:

---

Tis is not a purpose

---

You may not like the implications, and you may wish to attach a more personally appropriate purpose to your existence, but this is indeed a purpose, and it is the only one that is inherent in our existence.

As for the definitions, I'm not seeing what you're trying to say.

I know very well the definitions of such words, as I am sure most people do. My point, as well as Poi's, I assume, is that the myths are the basis for the religion, and as such, religion is equatable to myth. For me there is no differentiation between greek, egyption, norse, Assyrian, or hebrew myth.

quote:

---

The tendency to spirituality is a collective subonscient movement IMO

---

I still disagree completely.

The ability to look at our own existence and question it's purpose is something all human's have in common.

That does not equate to spirituality, nor is there anything truly collective or subconscious about it. I would classify it as purely intellectual on its basic level.

I prefer this poi I thought you were actually meaning that I was part of the "tendency to stupidity"... Thanks for making your allusion clearer.

quote:

---

I wonder to which degree that movement is actually cultural/determinist instead of innate.

---

This is very interesting indeed. I do believe this is mostly innate, but have no proof about this, it's rather like an intuition... So no arguments about that i'm afraid Might think about it a bit further on eventually.

quote:

---

Let's get back to the fairy tales point. If/Since the religions are based on fairy tales, myths and other bed time stories which credit shall we accord to them ? Sure they sounds good and may please some people but I need more, something more tangible, to believe in a superior being.

---

I've got a bit of a... begining of answer:

- Some of these stories have "miraculously" appeared in different parts of the world and at the same time; although they were sometimes rather different from each other, their key points were similar. Again I'll dig a bit further to find examples.

- How come these stories coming from very different cultures present similar points when the ways of communications at those times were so less developped, almost inexistant?

quote:

---

You may not like the implications

---

Of course I don't, but this isn't the point.

quote:

---

may wish to attach a more personally appropriate purpose to your existence

---

Contrariwise it is important to me to attach a more global purpose to my as well as everyone's existance, no matter my only existence on its one

I think you can take this latest staement as a summary of my point of view.



(P.S DL-44: By the way, I just wanted to thank you very much for your tutorial about creating shapes and 3D effects, I've learned loads and enojed myself a lot)

IMHO the tendency to spirituality is rather cultural/determinist. Since we no longer have to hunt to eat, and are surounded by believers and places of cult we have the time to and are influenced to question our existence. Does the other animals having social behavior and aware of themselves have a spirituality ? To my knowledge we've never seen a group of chimps, dolphins, macaques, ... praying.

quote:

---

- How come these stories coming from very different cultures present similar points when the ways of communications at those times were so less developped, almost inexistant?

---

Maybe because science was as little developped as the communications means. Involving miracles was a pretty and fit-everything reason to explain the ununderstandable.

quote:

---

Some of these stories have "miraculously" appeared in different parts of the world and at the same time; although they were sometimes rather different from each other, their key points were similar.

---

Many stories have arisen in various cultures around the world. The most well know example is that most cultures have a flood story. However, they did not all appear at the same time.

quote:

---

- Some of these stories have "miraculously" appeared in different parts of the world and at the same time; although they were sometimes rather different from each other, their key points were similar. Again I'll dig a bit further to find examples.

---

There are plenty of cultures with somewhat similar stories.

Almost all of these varied cultures developed at (in many cases) drastically different times. Often the stories are also drastically different. There are certainly similarities in the types of stories told in many cases as well. Remember that we are still one species, and are physiologically the same. This means our brains will essentially work the same across the board, even though there will be some pretty big differences in the conclusions we come to.

quote:

---

- How come these stories coming from very different cultures present similar points when the ways of communications at those times were so less developped, almost inexistant?

---

For starters, as mentioned above, we are the same species. We are physiologically the same. This is significant.
It's also important to note that our species originated in one basic location, and spread from there. Many of these stories, or the concepts that formed them, came about during the long course of migration. Some of the concepts are simply observations of nature -- the idea of man being made from mud is a common one. Why? It is very easy to observe that something dead "returns" to the earth...decomposes and becomes part of the soil. Not a huge leap in logic for primitive man to assume that he is therefore made from the stuff he turns into when he dies...

Back to being the same species.
All manner of animal species, no matter what part of the world you find them in, no matter if it is now or 1,000 years ago (or in some acses, 1,000,000 years ago...), will act in essentially the same way as other members of the same species, or even the same genus, in any other geographical or chronological location will.

Does this equate to a 'collective subconscious' connectiing through the millenia among all of the species of lizard, or horse, or falcon, or hornet?

Point being, man, like any other species, has a certain place in the world around him. We respond to that world in very similar ways, based on the place we hold in it, whether we are in one location or another.

It is not, in itself, indicitive of anything more grand than that.

No more than our existence is indicitive of any purpose grander than that given the rest of the animal world.



(Edited by DL-44 on 03-03-2005 00:55)

quote:

---

the idea of man being made from mud is a common one.

---

This story might also come from the first forms of arts. Our ancestors certainly noticed they can shape a ball of mud, and especially give it the shape of a mate. Therefore the idea of bringing life to it is not a huge leap. ... who said Pinnochio ?

All the above is most reasoned and rational, I like it.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

something interesting to me in this thread is the reference by several people to a similar thought of "if God was real He would show Himself to us". is it all that farfetched to believe that He has shown Himself to some people in one form or another?

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

is it all that farfetched to believe that He has shown Himself to some people in one form or another?

---

Yes.

=)

This is where the death, burial and resurrection really becomes critical. If that indeed happened, then it is *highly* likely that Jesus was who he claimed to be. That means that not only did God appear to selected individuals throughout the Old Testament times, but lived among us ~2000 years ago. Is it far fetched? Well, I would say that it is extarordinary indeed. So the extraordinary proof of its validity would have to come from something on the magnitude of the resurrection.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Farfetched? People who see things are often housed by the state in nice surroundings and given cool jackets with very long arms and nifty buckles.

The rest see divinity in grilled cheese sandwiches and random mould growths.

Farfetched?

Really!

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

If that indeed happened

---

If that indeed happened, things change.

Having never seen the slightest bit of reason to even truly *suggest* that it might have happened (other than a story saying that it did..........), that is far too big an "if" to even begin to speculate on.

Of course we've been through many conversations here reagarding that story, so I won't start all over with it now...

Given what we know these days about modern medicine, it would not surprise me if Jesus did appear to "rise from the dead" - someone in a comatose condition in those times would appear for all intents and purposes to be dead. That he might awake, and then suffer a relapse and then die in his weakened condition would not be all that surprising, considering the nature of the wounds that he had and the conditions that he suffered.

Again, I would be cautious against assuming that a supernatural agent was at work, when a natural explaination would better fit the situation.

We have been over this before and we can reference those conversations. Suffice it to say here that I think the story saying that it did happen has tremendous merit. WS, what one has to do is take the theory you just offered and walk it through the facts as we know them to see if it makes sense.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-04-2005 21:40)

What facts?

To the best of my knowledge, the only source forthat yarn is the highly questionable bible.

Hell, you and jade can't even agree on the interpretation of what is essentially the same book.

There is no rational reason to believe in the resurrection story whatsoever and as with the entire bible, no factual support has been put forward.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I think you're over generalizing, Ehtheist. There are plenty of facts that we know about the bible with respect to the people and historical context in which it was written. I'm not talking about the "fact" of the resurrection per se. I'm talking about who wrote the books, when and many of the circumstances surrounding the events described.

Jade and I do not disagree nearly as much as you may think about what the actual New Testament has to say. Where she and I part company is whether the edicts of the RC church magisterium have co-authority with scripture. Regarding the death, burial and resurrection (DBR) of Christ, I think you will find she and I very much on the same page.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I'll agree there are plenty of things in the bible that can be said to be 'fact' but the vast majority are 'incidentals'.

The gospels are very far from containing anything that can be called fact (perhaps a mention of a name here or there that can be somewhat verified....).

So we don't end up writing all the things we already have on this topic... please to be referencing this thread that I just preserved: Paul Harvey Passion review

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Ye gads! What an apalling bit of self-serving crap that was. Harvey, as an ordained minister, cannot be expected to give a very unbiased report on his lord and master.

I don't think I over-generalize at all Bug. The fact the bible may make mention of some historical figures does not lend any authentication to the myths of which the bible is composed.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

DOH! You weren't supposed to read Paul Harvey's review. About midway down the thread, you will see the conversation address the historical aspects of the New Testament, both for and against. Take another look and I think it will really address what the last few posts have been about.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Well I wasted a lot of time reading that whole boring thread and I don't see what you claim is there.

Besides, you can't prove the authenticity of the bible by quoting the bible.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Bugs, "rising from the dead" - most native peoples have a special status for someone who has died, and then returned to life. And even these days, people actually die medically and return.

So "rising from the dead" in and of itself is not all that unusual - and certainly would not be a convincing piece of evidence to prove that god exists - in fact, I just don't see a relation here.

Death is just one more natural occurance in Nature.

But being crucified by the Roman legions is hardly a natural occurrence Huge difference there.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Apparently it was a common practice of the times, sufficient so for it to be a natural consequence of pissing off the Romans.

We no more know how many of the crucified may have later awakened and survived their injuries, than we know for certain that there was a xist or that he was crucified or that he was wounded as described.

It is a damn good story and if I were writing it I would throw in the typical punishment of the day for my mythical hero to suffer...especially If I were planning to later have him 'rise'...perhaps he had a yeast infection?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

The existence of Jesus, the man, simply isn't questioned anymore by anyone who is familiar with the period of history in question. The debate has shifted from whether the NT is historically reliable to whether or not it's more extraordinary claims are true.

I fully acknowledge that the claims of Jesus' divinity and the resurrection require a leap of faith. What we have are the words of his followers written down and claiming these things about Christ. One must look at the data we have and reason it through to make a determination as to whether the claims are more likely or less likely to be true. You mentioned earlier it was irrational to have faith in Xianity, but I would argue that ration is the best way to come to a true faith in Xist. If the Xian faith is just a shot in the dark, then it isn't worth my time.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

an adventure of heroes taking up similar roles has been in human culture's throughout the history

http://www.am-psychotherapists-new-york-city.com/Joseph-Campbell.html
http://www.tearsofllorona.com/hero.html

So Bugs I am sure you know that there are many other religious texts (or should I call them now mythological texts?) that talk about factual events.

For example Greek story about Trojan horse,

there are thousands of others, all mention historical figures/rulers that scholars consider to have existed. Yet all include supernatural heroes like Achilles etc

I for that matter accept that there was a man who influenced christianity, whatever his name was it's unknown.

He surely was of a lower class who happened to know about Jewish theology and in fact challanged it.

Roman adoptation of christianity was nothign more than a political issue.

As far as I hear all of the scholars say that NT gospels that made it into what is now known as bible , have been written at least around 60 to 40 years after apostle death.

Heh no wonder they are called "Gospel according to (Some guy)"

(Edited by Ruski on 03-06-2005 04:59)

Sorry Bug, I have not found and you have not provided me, with any source, aside from the bible, which mentions xist historically.


BTW, Whatever the Aramaic was which has been translated into xist, both names were apparently as common as Smith.

I was watching an archeological program where-in the diggers said they come across bones and burials in that part of the world almost daily, with that name attached.

Now, if it were a common name as suggested and you were a writer of the day who wanted to create a hero, you would want to create someone every-one could relate to. So, use a common name and a common profession.

The more I think about those bible, the more I see it for the work of some writers who bound together hundreds of years of old myths and stuck a mythical hero in the middle.

Sure makes more sense that way.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Ehtheist, I thought I did. This link can be found in the thread I cited earlier, please take a look:

http://www.probe.org/docs/ancient.html

Again, the theory that it was a hoax is important to consider. Does everything we know make sense if it were a hoax? There are problems with that theory. Where did the body go for instance? All the authorities had to do is produce the body. What did the apostles gain from the hoax? Riches? Power? They were all slaughtered except for John for their claims *and* not one of them admitted under this persecution that they had made it up. What drove them to that? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that at the very least they believed 100% in their story?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

All the authorities had to do is produce the body

---

This argument has been brought up many times.

There is a *big* problem with it. A couple maybe.

First and foremost: all we have for reference are the 'gospel' accounts of the story.

The authorities producing a body requires many things.

1) it requires the authorities to know where the body is. There are many reasons why they may not have.

2) (this is the important one) it requires the movement around the divinity (reliant, of course, on the resurrection) to have been a movement that developed quickly and strongly enough to be a bother to the "authorities" and therfore prompt them to action in regard to said body (or movement in general).

It seems pretty clear given the accepted timeframes of the writing of the gospels that many decades had gone by before the production of such a body could *possibly* have been called for as refutation of a resurrection. And obviously by then it would be far too late to worry about such a thing...

Had the resurection actually happened, perhaps the production of a body or some similar attempt at action would have been plausible to ask for, and more than likely some repsonse at least would have been forthcoming (and thus recorded).

The total silence on behalf of the authorites is the strongest piece of evidence *against* the idea of an actual resurection, IMO. The strongest evidence that the *concept* of a resurection did not even happen until well after the fact.

Had there been large groups of people running around 3 days after the crucifixion yammering about Jesus walking aruond, I find it completely unbelievable that *no* action at all would have been taken. At the least, we would have in the gospel some record of attempted refutation by the authorities.

But nothing...

A less biased and more reasoned source;

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

one as biased as yours perhaps; http://hamsa.org/jesus-history2.htm


Facts overwhelm faith: http://www.truthbeknown.com/jesuspuzzle.htm

The only suggestion there was a resurrection still comes from xian writings...hysterical rather than historical evidence.

Even so, your own myth says his close buddies didn't recognize him. Must have been an imposter then huh? Gullible lads those disciples.

I am afraid Bug, you will have to rely heavily on your faith as fact will offer you no comfort whatsoever.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

addendum;

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/martin.html

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

As for what the apostles gained from the idea of the resurrection: they gain immortality for their movement.

That's a pretty significant thing that many people have been willing to die for in various situations/movements.

Dying for a cause is not so rare a thing.

Lying for a cause isn't either, and is something that christianity has practiced throughout its history...no big leap to say that it started at the *very* beginning.

I will reiterate that I do not doubt Jesus' existence.

I do not 'doubt' the resurrection either - rather I hold that it simply didn't happen, for reasons that should be obvious to you bugs, with what you know of my position in general.

Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, and the like offer 'circumstantial' evidence for the existince of Jesus. Do these sources prove his existence irrefutably? Not even close. But they offer as much premise as we have for the existence of many other historical figures, and the combination of these references, the movement in general and the ideas that it represented, references to other family memebers, etc, is enough for me to presume he existed.

Simply existing, and being a god, of course, are two very different things

Well DL, those sources you quote are so questionable as to be inadmissable. I believe my links cast quite sufficient doubt for any by the zealot. As stated earlier by meself, the bible in it's entirety has been so bowdelrized and "adjusted" to suit the flavour of the day, it can only be faith which would lend one to give it any creedence whatsoever.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I believe my links cast quite sufficient doubt for any by the zealot

---

The raise sufficient doubt to require a further researching of the materials referenced on those pages.

None of them appear to me as credible enough to stand on their own, however, and it is irresponsible to accept the superficial treatment of the subject matter as 'gospel' ( ) when using them to refute the validity of some other source.

I am hardly a zealot in any sense, and obviously not in regard to the religion whose premise I oppose.

I have seen all of those pages before, and aside from wanting to read the 'Jesus Puzzle' book , found very little on them to add to the conversation (other than my mention of some of the sources earlier which are also mentioned on most of those pages).

Your statements about the bible in general I agree with,and have said similar things plenty of times. That doesn't equate to outright dismissal of everything contained within it, however.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

...for reasons that should be obvious to you bugs...

---

Well, of course, they are. I am personally content to agree to disagree on this as much as it pains me... and I know the feeling is mutual As with most topcis like this, there is an abundance of arguments and counter arguments.

I appreciate that you accept the existence of the historical Jesus. It speaks to your objectivity. I also think I understand where you are coming from. I have associated with the atheist/agnostic mindset for much of my life. I tend towards skepticism on plenty topics myself. It's not such a bad thing because the only way to make sure an idea is sound is to take a critical look at it and challenge its precepts.

One thing that I would like to mention here is that in spite of how highly we regard reason, knowledge, the scientific method and the like, these things are limited. We are human and quite imperfect in our understanding. You will never get the level of proof you seek from these things alone. There will come a time when fiath is required. Just as we need air to breath, water to drink and food to nourish our bodies to survive... we need to connect with the eternal through faith. I am beginning to believe this is just something that we humans need to acknowledge and let go of our pride. I would love nothing more than to be able to tell you that Xianity is 100% true and correct and here's the undisputed truth, but rarely in this world is anything so certain. I would actually argue nothing is and that at the very core of every one of our philosophies lies the "assumption" that we cling to.


Ehtheist, I do not expect to convince you of the resurrection on the basis of a link or two. The links you offer above are also biased since they originate from orginizations opposed to religion (Pesonally I don't believe any source is without bias including my own) Just take a look at this bit from the about us section of infidels.org:

quote:

---

Our adopted mission is to defend and promote a naturalistic worldview on the Internet. To that end we publish the very best secular essays, papers, articles and reviews.

---

I sincerely hope your position is not that anything agrees with your world view is objective and anything that doesn't isn't.

Anyways, what I do hope to show you is that not all people who have faith in Jesus Christ are basing that faith in hysteria or anything close. There are plenty of highly intelligent, rational and educated people who find sufficient cause to choose a faith in the God of the bible. My goal here is to help clarify why I believe what I do, how I reach those conclusions and how that affects how I live my life.

At the end of the day, I believe that few people are swayed or converted by direct arguments such as the type we usually do here. It is the interaction with people in the course of life that really makes the biggest impacts in what people believe and how they think.

Ruski, I didn't mean to ignore your post Actually, the existence of the "god becoming man" stories in other cultures has been a difficult one for me. I mentioned that in a few years ago in a post. I wonder if I can find that quote... nope couldn't find it but suffice it to say I have no desire to mask the areas I have difficulty with my faith.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-07-2005 04:50)

No problemo Bugs.

About the faith thingy, I disagree. You might have found your comfort in faith; others simply do not find it so. Instead they can gain insecurity, fear and confusion.

People can rather find comfort in art (like me) where intellect creativity and imagination go hand in hand.
Others simply rely on reason, history and science.

They find those tools and concepts to be much more rewarding and mind stimulating than faith. Just like not everyone likes Sushi, even though it is great food . People must choose how they want to seek their pleasure.

In fact faith can be such a passionate and dangerous thing that even the Founding fathers of USA decided to keep it personal and away from the government.




But I am sure you are aware of all of these. =)

Ruski, I'm suggesting that faith is as deeply built into the species as requiring food to survive. And just like food, there is healthy food and not so healthy, and there are those who die from its lack. I'm suggesting that this "need" may not be simply an evolutionary quirk but rather something placed there in the course intelligent design. The "God hole" as some call it is actually one of the reasons I think God exists. Here are a couple of quotes that I like regarding that:

quote:

---

Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only for a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
--Abraham Lincoln

If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it you don't feel at homne there?
--C. S. Lewis

---

[edit]And the founding fathers were actually extremely fond of faith demonstrated by the fact that most of them believed in the Supreme Being. What they did find dangerous was the government telling you what to believe.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-07-2005 05:34)

I dunno about people dying without a faith, that seems to be pretty damn exagerated sentence.

On to quotes, I am not even going to argue about them. Immortality is another concept men have tried to archive simply because they cannot cope with reality. To me immortality lies in the idea that we not only pass on our genes, but also our beliefs, cultures and ways of thinking. Putting in metaphorically I would say (Passing on the torch for the future generation)

It has nothing to do flying with magical being in some dimension. I prefare to look at in in more realistic fashion.

and I am aware of Founding Fathers beliefs and many of them were Dieists, but of course during that time, faith was still necessary, but surely they kept it personal.

faith can have it's use. I would prefare to have faith in the future rther than past. =)

Dude, I'm just relating the need for faith to the need for food. Faith feeds the spiritual side of our beings and food feeds the physical body. I think it is quite possible to do without the faith part as you well know... it's just that would guarantee a purely physical existence as the spiritual existence would die of starvation.

Besides, faith has a profound effect on how we live our lives while we are here. So even if there isn't an afterlife, there is a very real aspect to the concept that we call faith.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

just how rational is it to talk about "spirtuality" ?

I for the most part never expirienced any. "shurgs"


{add}
I simply do not agree with you on this comparison.

(Edited by Ruski on 03-07-2005 06:03)

How rational is it? I would say that would totally depend on the reasoning process that would lead one to explore spirituality. I argue that my belief in the existence of the spirit is rational. It is based on a set of basic assumptions about reality and I do my best to draw conclusions reasoning from those assumptions.

I think that one of your assumptions is probably that there is no supernatural; or that we live in a completely material universe and everything that exists can be explained with a sufficient grasp of scientific data and analysis. Is that close? So to you it makes no sense to talk of spirit when, by definition, it's outside of reality.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Actually Bugs, I see the opposite of what you believe. I think Mankind has a need to explain the unknown. And before Science offered real, reasoned explainations, Mankind invented Spirits, Gods, and Mythical Creatures to explain those things that were unexplainable at the time.

As we mature as a race, and Science grows, we have come to explain quite a bit - and the Spirits, Gods, and Mythical Creatures of old have retreated into the imaginary mists where they came from. We had this discussion before, as I remember.

God has retreated, in the face of Science. As for immortality, I do believe that Mankind may reach it - if it is indeed possible to reach such. But it will be through Science and not through Religion. We are near to extending lifespans considerably - it is not unimaginable that in the future, lifespans will be increased dramatically (and here I am talking about the near future - within the next 100 years).

Should death fall (or at least, the threat of it retreat), I think that Religion will suffer accordingly. After all, much of modern faiths do revolve around what happens after death, with many a penalty/reward for how one lived this life.

I think that one does need to consider that the human body is a biological machine, and therefore, it should be possible to repair it. Our technology just isn't advanced enough to do this as we can with other types of machines. However, advancements in the nanotechnology area, Gene treatment area, and the science of Biology hold great promise IMHO.

The real question is, is the human (soul, spirit, conciousness, etc) actually capable of surviving immortality? This is probably a question better left for another thread, maybe. Suffice it to say, that this "God hole" of yours (as you call it) is nothing more, than a need for answers to explain the unknown IMHO.

You know I don't subscribe to the "God of the Gaps" methodology.

quote:

---

The weakness of "God of the Gaps" methodology is that the existence of God would be endangered every time scientists filled the gaps with knowledge. Howard J Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, warns against this risk, and proposes instead to see the whole of the evolutionary saga as a pointer to a creative and generous God, no gaps needed.

---

ref: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/God_of_the_Gaps

So with the understanding of God that is mentioned in the quote, I don't think God has retreated in the face of science. He has in the minds of those who use the God of the Gaps.

The immortality you describe... just isn't. Even if we learned how to extend life for 1000s of years, it is still but a season compared to actual eternity. And quite honestly, I don't believe in our present existence we can survive immortality. I believe we will require a complete make over by the Maker to survive such an existence. We are in a fallen state right now destined for a return to the dust from which we were crafted, whether that return is tomorrow or millenia from now.

To your other point, why do you think we have a need to explain the unknown? We have a need to eat and there is food, we have a need to drink and there is water, we have a need for something greater than this life... why must it be the only need that is not provided for in our reality? Perhaps the need is a clue to the existence of the provision.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

For believers with faith in God all is possible. Even in the supernatural. And I think this concept in faith is practiced by many different religious sects who worship a God of the heavens. Because we do believe the body who is glorified in the spirit can attain the supernatural in the form of gifts. This is recorded in the history of the Christian faith. Christ perfomed many supernatural miracles. Some not even recorded in scripture. He sent his followers the gifts also to be done in his name. We know we are all endowed certain abilities and differents gifts. But in the supernatural, the soul takes on a Christ power. We think that this supernatural power from Christ does exist even today because the holy spirit of God is still with us. What reason would it have to stop. Many persons through the grace of the Almighty have been endowed with the ability to perform wonderous miracles. This is verified by prophetic scripture. In the Christ way of thinking God chooses a soul for a certain mission or deed, so the soul filled with the power of Christ, is Christ. It is Christ in that person who is perfroming that supernatural act. This happens on many levels in the nature of Christ on the extent of how the supernatural act is viewed. For believers God works his miracles in the science of nature and the desire to seek and reason God's existence comes from God through its communciation with the intelligence of mind, the body and the spirit. For us, only in this way will we come to the full revelation of the essence of God. For many of us it takes a lifetime of trial an error to get even close. Most never make it at all.

For example, a mystic who comes to mind is Padre Pio, a monk, but there are many many others. He was a stigmatist. (Expierenced the ecstasy of the passion of Christ suffering with wounds) He also had the gift of bi-location, where his double was seen in spirit when he never left his abby. He bi-located many times and was recorded by eyewitnesses. In the confessional he knew the sins of the people before they gave him his confession. He would hear hundreds of confessions a day. One I read is when a women went to the confessional and confessed her sins, but eliminated a horrible sin. He then told her to go look her well at home and then come back to the confessional. She did as he requested and saw the silloutte of her dead baby who she had drowned many years before. This is just one example. There are also recorded levitations. One I know of is one priest who was called the flying priest, because he levitated during mass and would go from one place to another without touching ground. Of course one can be skeptial about this but its part of the faith and not necessary to believe in to have faith in Christ.

For Christians, the knowlege in the existence God attains one the ability experience the power of God in the acts of the supernatural and to see God in the everyday natural.

(Edited by jade on 03-07-2005 16:54)

Dragons, trolls, banshees, Camelot, leprechuans...etc, we have a rich written history of all of these and none of them ever existed either.

Bug, every argument and defence you provide is predicated upon the existance of a god.

Until you can substantiate your position without relying on biblical sources, you will make no headway whatsoever.

My links are every bit as valid as yours and most are far less biased. There is nothing sinister about promoting secular points of view, especially in the Excited States where religion is more a cudgel than anything else.

In my case it is reasoning which leaves me with no option but to consider, as the Romans did, that xianity of nothing more than a superstition.

Despite your protestations to the contrary there is no solid, irrefutable evidence to substantiate the existance of a god or your xist.

Sorry DL, the "zealot" reference was a generalization, not aimed at you at all.

Jade, how do you enjoy being a member of a cult which which practices ritual cannibalism?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Jade, how do you enjoy being a member of a cult which which practices ritual cannibalism?

---

In what way? Please explain.

quote:

---

Dragons, trolls, banshees, Camelot, leprechuans...etc, we have a rich written history of all of these and none of them ever existed either.

---

The evil one takes on many forms in this world. I assume it takes on the form of humans, animals, monsters, etc. Are there monsters in this world? I believe., Yes. Even humans perform monsterous acts. I remember one time a person heard one way to summon evil was to go into dark room, count to ten and then satan comes. And he did. Nothing happend then. He saw no devils, but his life has been full of evil acts, adultrey, sexual abuse of children, alcoholism and a life of debachery. So, evil in many forms come to one who loves evil.

(Edited by jade on 03-07-2005 19:08)

jade: I suppose Etheist is refering to the fact that the priest are "drinking the blood of the Christ", and the believers are "eating his body".

Oh...

This is a common misconception. I can assure you there is no cannibalism involved. But the community of believers partake of this also drinking of the blood and eating of his body. Since, Christ himself told his disciples to do this in his memory, we must follow this ritual. It the basis of what our religion stands. But if you don't know the deep theological basis for the ritual, I can see where one could get confused. It memorializes the Lords Supper/Passion. We do not crucify Christ all over again, but we do believe the wine/bread is transformed to the real presence of Christ thru a mystery of transubstantiation. Here is a more detailed explanation of i:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#1

"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). "

Here we believe Jesus is using prophecy. When Christ said these words stated in the Gospel of John, he lost many thousands of followers because they didn't understand. They thought he must of been looney. Christ could of said, " wait a minute, come back, come back, you don't understand what I mean." But he didn't. He knew what he was referring to would be hard to swallow, even in those times. And then he asked his apostles "Are you going to leave me too" And the disciples said. How can we leave you, you have the words of eternal life. I always felt that John 666 referred to Revelations 666. Anyway, from the beginning thur the history of Christianity, followers always were communal to take the bread and wine and fully believed in the real presence. When many Christian sects splintered off thur the ages, for the most part they eliminated this ritual and but some today still practice it. I think the Lutherans, Greek Orthodox and Episcopal Church still have communion too. I do know reading the biography of Martin Luther that he also believed in the real presence.

quote:

---

But if you don't know the deep theological basis for the ritual, I can see where one could get confused.

---

I know/suppose this is not directly aimed at me. I know the wine/bread symbolizes the blood/flesh of Jesus. However I must admit I didn't knew the purpose of this ritual.

For the record, I've been baptized, went to catechism for 1 or 2 year, and even made my communion. But actually I don't remember of a single moment in my life where I believed in a superior being.

It is ritual cannibalism and it's quite good actually. I gnaw on Jesus' flesh and drink his blood on a weekly basis Jade quite appropriately cited John chapter 6 regarding this.

poi, the night that Jesus was betrayed and before his crucifixion, he told his disciples that the bread represented his body which would be broken and the wine represented the blood of the New Covenant which would be poured out for the forgiveness of sins. He told them to continue to do that ritual in rememberance of him. I'm not aware of any mainstream Xian groups who don't participate in communion.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Eat hearty

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

To your other point, why do you think we have a need to explain the unknown?

---

Because we have the ability to recongnize something as being unknown, and it installs fear and curiosity in us. Explaining it takes away the fear and satisfies the feeling of curiousity.

Second is an undying curiousity (of which Mankind is not alone in) - our thirst for knowledge is a known trait.

Yes, but why do we need to know why is what I'm probing.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Yes, but why do we need to know why is what I'm probing.

---

Why do YOU need to know why? Answer that question and you've answered your own question.

I have. But I don't think you accept my answer, briggl. The answer is that we seek purpose because we were created for it by God.

[edit]WS's answer to me was basically "because we can". Does that explain it enough for you? Isn't that just like saying "because God did it"?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-08-2005 00:43)

Bugimus: That's not a surprise but I neither buy your answer
The human species, and several other animal species, have the capacity to solve never seen before problems. Some people even specialized in solving/trying to solve problems. Shall we put our head in the sand and do as if those questions do not exist and invoke a convenient deity in all occasions ?

We "need" to know what our purpose is simply because we have built ourselves up in importance to the point that we cannot accept that we don't have some lofty purpose.

To say that this "need" equates to the need for food or water is plain silly, IMO.

As a prime example in support of this, I must cite the fact that I do not feel this need. And yet I am not a cold empty shell, dying for lack of purpose.

We've had the discussion many times before of this "god hole". Many people simply do not have such a thing. It is very clear that many people seem to have this need in their life, and they fill it with 'god'. In my experience, none of these people have been able to accept that others simply *do not* have this need, this hole.

I don't substitute drugs, or money, or success, or fame, or any other such thing for the missing 'god' in my life. And I am certainly not unique in this.

The only purpose beyond the purely biological is the purpose I create for myself. It is only as grand as the impact it has on others (and my imagination). It will only last as long as people feel it warrants having recorded or remembered.

And that's ok =)

Yes, I know where you stand, poi.

I had hoped that you could see that I'm not advocating that we attribute every unexplained thing to a "convenient deity".

Human understanding and the scientific method have limitations. Science is simply not able to answer some of the most sought after answers that we as a species long for. I'm not sure you and some others here would agree with that.

[edit]DL, are you telling me that the first time you realized that you would someday die, you were totally ok with the idea? What was your initial gut reaction to your realization that you were mortal. I most certainly got depressed when I realized that I was going to die someday. It didn't really hit me too hard until my late 20s and then I really had to come to terms with that reality.


: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-08-2005 02:01)

Indeed you're not a zealot like Gideon et al.

What is "the most sought after answers that we as a species long for" to you ?

the unified theory ? the existence of other intelligent forms of life on other planets ? the real number of dimensions ? the number of universe(s) ? this is the kind of questions I'm eager to hear the replies.

quote:

---

I most certainly got depressed when I realized that I was going to die someday.

---

You know one day or another everybody dies. It includes you, me, our friends, parents, children, pets, ... There's no need to cry about that, it won't change anything. Praying won't change it either. Till then : CARPE DIEM.



(Edited by poi on 03-08-2005 02:25)

quote:

---

It didn't really hit me too hard until my late 20s and then I really had to come to terms with that reality.

---

I don't recall a sudden realization, nor any partiuclar gut reaction.

I can honestly say that I dealt with this thought as a child...perhaps 6-8 years old. Not to say the thought of death doesn't come around from time to time....but it's never been an issue that I saw as particularly problematic.

I must say that I am a little intrigued that this is an issue that 'hit you hard' in your 20's...it clearly illustrates the difference in our views in general.

Everything dies.

~shrug~

Accepting that from the start saves a lot of grief later on, I'd say

Coming to terms with the idea that there may be nothing beyond this existence is a good way to make sure you've got your priorities straight too. Unfortunately, most people will read that as implying that we should just live it up and now and fuck everything else (or just fuck everything... ). It doesn't have to be so extreme...

You can accept life as it is without losing all sense of hope or reason or goodness.

There can also be something beyond what we can see and touch without needing the concept of god or religion. There can be something 'higher' (and looking at humanity I'd even say there clearly is...) that is truly higher, rather than something higher that is centered on us, whose greatest deed was creating us, and a world for us...and whose biggest worry is what we do...

we're a part of a cycle that goes far beyond us or our silly needs or feelings of purpose.



(Edited by DL-44 on 03-08-2005 04:36)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

WS's answer to me was basically "because we can". Does that explain it enough for you? Isn't that just like saying "because God did it"?

---

As WS said, humans have a curiosity built in that drives us to find answers. Many philosophers have tried to answer why, and I don't have any better answers than anyone else. But because I don't know the answer doesn't mean that God did it.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

It didn't really hit me too hard until my late 20s and then I really had to come to terms with that reality.

---

So sometime in your late 20's you woke up and said, "Oh, my gosh, I'm going to die someday!" Then you decided that God was the answer. Was that because you realized that other answers meant that you were mortal and someday would just be gone? (No everlasting life.) Or did you have some kind of revelation like Gideon says he had? Or was it something else?




(Edited by briggl on 03-08-2005 04:53)

Well, from an evolutionary standpoint, since we humans don't have much in the way of natural weaponry, and we are not particularly fast, strong, or big, we have one thing that puts us above the rest of the animal kingdom - our ability to reason, solve problems, and turn the unknown into the known.

This ability to explore the unknown has undoubtedly led to our success as a species. Being able to understand the how, the why, the what, etc does lead to the ability to better plan, to see action and consequence, and to continually advance our ability to survive and adapt to our environment. This in turn led to an increase in population. And the rest is human history.

And I firmly believe that Mankind will conquer death one day. It is one of the striving parts of our existence, to escape it. Unfortunately, I won't be around to enjoy it. But then, the greater cycles of existence doesn't take the insigificence of myself into consideration.

And I think that is the main point here. It is not the central point of existence to revolve around us, but rather, our task to understand and accept this Nature that surrounds us. Our existence makes very little difference to the vast cycles of Nature.

And we shouldn't fool ourselves that this is somehow different, just because of belief in the supernatural. Irregardless of belief, we still are subject to the cycles of Nature and existence. For me, this is the most impelling argument that the universe is a natural environment.

quote:

---

we still are subject to the cycles of Nature and existence. For me, this is the most impelling argument that the universe is a natural environment.

---

Yes, I agree, but all anyone has to do is say that it is because that is the way God made it, then we're right back at square 1.

briggl: And all anyone saying it is because that is the way God made it is a zealot using its convenient deity to fit every single thing it do/can not understand. Such a zealot will preach in the desert and have no chance at all to convince a skeptic of the existence of a superior being.

It is desperation in my view.

Those like Jade and to a lesser degree Bug, who feel the need to proselytize, are just looking for re-assurance that what they believe is correct. "The more people who believe the way I do, the more I am sure I am right".

This reveals a deeply rooted, but not yet admitted, insecurity about their faith in my opinion.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Well, I have to wonder Ehethist, what draws us to evangelize for Christ as opposed to you who evangelize against it. Of where does this need to oppose it come from? What drives you to do this too?

Bugs & I know why we feel compelled to do it. It is Christ who lives in us. It is he who speaks even if we are imperfect with sin. We are just the vessels he uses. Every good thought, word or deed comes from faith. Christians may differ in ways of worship to CHrist as Bugs and I do, but it all leads to the same message. Of Christ walk on Calvery to the cross, his embrace of it and death on it for the salvation of the souls of mankind. Its our way of imitating the the life of Christ human that draws us to seek the light that lives in others.

quote:

---

Of where does this need to oppose it come from?

---

It comes form having it shoved down your throat constantly.

It comes from the violent history of the religion.

It comes from the absolute lies propogated by the religious in tehir quest for conversion.

It comes from the absolute hypocrisy presented by the vast majority of the religious.

When things that are blatantly false are touted as absolute truth, and shoved down your throat every day, you come to a point where you simply must stand up and say "enough of this bullshit".

And then when you have discussions about it, and hordes of people come out with statements that are blatantly wrong, but are supported by church doctrine....there is no choice but to oppose it.

DL-44: when I first read your last post I thought it came from Etheist
Whatever I agree with you

Anyway.....
I don't believe its forced on anyone here lately. For those who have ears to hear, let them hear. To discuss it harms no one.
Christ did not come to do any harm and make you feel threatened about him.

quote:

---

I don't believe its forced on anyone here lately.

---

Here probably. But if it's not forced on anyone how is it possible that millions of children are baptized without their wise approval ?

quote:

---

Anyway.....

---

Ah yes....ask a question and ignore the answer.

ok =)

Yah DL, stop stealin' me t'under

Really Jade, if folks like you didn't come onto public forums spewing such arrant nonsense, folks like me would not feel the need to prove you wrong...again and again and again.

It is not the a-religious who stand on street corners or beat down people's doors pushing their narrow religious views.

You are doing the same thing here...proselytizing and not very well either.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

You are doing the same thing here...proselytizing and not very well either.

---

Well, how could I improve my proselytizing? Help me out here.

Just stop it. It only comes in two grades, bad and worse.

Why the hell would I help you out? I don't approve of it.

Help you out? Sure...first, just show me how you got in.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Jade said:

Christ did not come to do any harm and make you feel threatened about him.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

---

Lets not pull just one sentence and not use the whole section.


34 ?Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Has a different meaning when you use the whole section. Its not meant to be taken in a literal way. I know we read the main message of Christ is that of peacemaker, but here he tells us he is a sword. Here I believe Christ with his prophetic words comes to tell us to follow him will divide because you will forsake others who will go against you. He uses the word sword, because a sword divides. At the time these words were written Jesus was telling of his future church which will have many divisions. But you will preservere if you believe in him with will attain life eternal. He uses family members because the Church is referred to in scripure as an intimate family. At the time there were Jews who wanted to believe in him and Jews who wanted to follow him. Jesus during his ministry caused all kinds of havoc and confusion and evean hatred amongst his own people, the Jews. His ministry and messge divided and still continues to divide. This timeless messge is for us too in this age because to follow the way of the cross divides us against our breathern. Is there total harmony in the Christian world. No there isn't.

quote:

---

Has a different meaning when you use the whole section.

---

Not really. Still sounds pretty vindictive to me.

Ehtheist, I was not serious about needing your help. I was only joking.

quote:

---

Here probably. But if it's not forced on anyone how is it possible that millions of children are baptized without their wise approval ?

---

Poi

Here the real meaning of baptism of infants is I think misunderstood by many outside the faith. Baptism of infants is an initiation of that child into the family of believers. And into the faith that the parents have. In the sacrament of the baptism rite the parents along with the grandparents are making a promise to bring the children up according to the faith. The rite of the waters of baptism hold much importance in the life of the child because we believe it washes away the original sin. I am a member of the baptism committee which hold classes for the parents and godparents. We instruct them on the importance of prayer life in the family at an early age. We send our children to preschool or kindergarten to learn when they are very young so why would we think that teaching the child about the love of God, which gives them eternal life early is wrong. I would instill that into my child as soon as possible. How can we expect a child to know about God if we do not teach them and know they belong into a worldwide family.
In our belief we believe if a person is not baptized he will not enter the kingdom, so we do it ASAP after birth of the child anyway. As the children become older in the faith they go thur another preparation to be in full communion with christ in the sacrament of the Communion. When the child becomes a teenager around 16 years old he is then ready to make a bigger committment to Christ thur the sacrament of Confirmation. They are able to choose if they are ready or not at this age. If not they may make this sacrament at an older age when ever they want.

All this being said, the faith believes if the child is baptized but has no instruction of faith from his family how can know who God is, or understand the faith. We believe baptism doesn't save you. You have to save yourself. This belief is at odds with most protestant denominations. They believe you have to be able to make your own choice when you get older on what faith you should decide to follow then get baptized. And once saved, always saved. We do not believe this way. We do many adult baptisms too. Because their parents didn't get them baptized when they were young. And we baptize new converts who are adults all the time. But we do recgonize a protestant baptism, so if they have already been baptized and convert to catholicism, we will not baptize them again.

(Edited by jade on 03-09-2005 06:59)

quote:

---

Here the real meaning of baptism of infants is I think misunderstood by many outside the faith. Baptism of infants is an initiation of that child into the family of believers. And into the faith that the parents have.

---

Indoctrination is indoctrination, irregardless of how it is presented. The fact remains, that the children do not get to excercise their free will here (and here in Germany, the children are normally indoctrinated into the Church at an early age, so any question about "free will" is moot). In Germany (at least in these parts up north, where I am living) it is considered more of a social gesture, with presents, etc - in effect bribes. The pressure from the surrounding community to do so, is enormous.

Web. How do you expect young children to exercise free will in regard to religious faith? I think they are not held accountable at that age? If you were a believer wouldn't you think they are heavenly until the age of knowlege of good and evil and an intended evil act is performed. Even if they are not baptized, they will not go to hell. In matters of faith until they reach the age of the knowldege of God and then act against God then the act will be judged. This is just what I think. Can't persume to know what God may decide. I believe when I have my day in the heavenly court, I will be judged from when I understood the message and still went against it. I don't presume to have all the answers.

I believe that someone should be an adult before being allowed to decide such issues. After all, we require that people be adult for a number of things that we consider valuable and important for society.

quote:

---

Even if they are not baptized, they will not go to hell.

---

Yes, well, then they don't need to be baptised in the first place, do they? So what is the purpose of the baptism? It seems to me, that it is a process soley designed to indoctrinate. The confirmation (which takes place much later) seems to be rather connected to the baptism, as well.

Why not wait for both until the person in question is considered an adult, and then can exercise their free will of their own accord?

jade: I second WebShaman's words. The practice of the baptem at an early age is a clear violation of the freedom of cult of the children. It's indoctrination and proselytism.

quote:

---

Baptism of infants is an initiation of that child into the family of believers. And into the faith that the parents have.

---

quote:

---

In our belief we believe if a person is not baptized he will not enter the kingdom, so we do it ASAP after birth of the child anyway.

---

Do you solely realise that you are saying that Christians are forcing their faith on their children ?

Whatever Christians do believe and how strong they believe, they have the duty to respect their children and their freedom of cult.

[personnal_rant]
Last year I went to the baptem of a niece, she was ~3 months old. I've had a hard time refraining to ask her parents how their baby managed to forge her opinion on faith and decided to be baptized while in 26 years I never "found" God. Few months ago, I've refused to become the godfather of my nephew, because I refuse to force a religion on him. Though I appreciate the confidence my sister-in-law put on me, I consider my answer as a gift I'm giving him. That way I'm preserving his freedom.
[/personnal_rant]



(Edited by poi on 03-09-2005 13:01)

quote:

---

Do you solely realise that you are saying that Christians are forcing their faith on their children?

---

And what religion does not do this? Every one that I know of does that, in various ways.

Indeed.
I specifically talked about the Christians as this thread is mainly aimed at the Christian God, but all believers doing this are guilty of not respecting the right of their children.



(Edited by poi on 03-09-2005 13:35)

quote:

---

but all believers doing this are guilty of not respecting the right of their children.

---

As much as I oppose religion, I would call this just plain silly.

You raise your children the way you feel is right.

Every parent does this, every parent should - must - do this.

If you beleive your child will go to hell if they don't live the right way, how can it be viewed as anything short of an absolute obligation to do the best you can to ensure that they live the right way?

Every parent "forces" their beliefs on their child one way or another. It's how it works. The ideal is that you raise a child capable of making an intelligent informed decision on the important matters in their life. But "intelligent" and "informed" are very relative things, reliant to a great extent upon what kinds of things parents subject their children to.

quote:

---

Last year I went to the baptem of a niece, she was ~3 months old. I've had a hard time refraining to ask her parents how their baby managed to forge her opinion on faith and decided to be baptized while in 26 years I never "found" God. Few months ago, I've refused to become the godfather of my nephew, because I refuse to force a religion on him. Though I appreciate the confidence my sister-in-law put on me, I consider my answer as a gift I'm giving him. That way I'm preserving his freedom.

---

Poi and others


Well... I dont see how you view this as force. Don't we indoctrine all kinds of beliefs to our children in other areas as they are growing? Like in education, certain self disclipines in family life, in our different cultures? Its a handed down legacy to our offspring. Why in the area of faith would it be any different? Besides when the child grows older it can choose. They have a free will. They can leave the Christian faith like most of you have. They are not locked it forever. Many other faiths do the same practice just in different forms.

(Edited by jade on 03-09-2005 15:25)

DL-44: Sorry to be so vigilante to the human rights. For sure there is bigger violations but this one is clear to me. Believers are citizens. As such they have the absolute obligation to respect their duties and the rights of others, including of their children. Among these rights, there is the freedom of cult.

As you just said the ideal solution is to raise the children and once they are capable of making an intelligent informed decision about religion they'll do.

jade: You see no force on putting a 3 months old child in a religious process and registering him/her as a member of that religion without asking his/her wise approval ? Sure, when the child grows older it can choose, but the evil is already done. In the facts most are locked forever as extremely little people know they can cancel their baptem and therefore be removed of the registers of the churches.

quote:

---

Many other faiths do the same practice just in different forms.

---

Is it supposed to justify the systematic baptem of the children of the Christians ?



(Edited by poi on 03-09-2005 16:18)

In a faith which puts so much emphais on symbolism, baptism is clearly one of it's most telling ceremonies, ritual brain-washing.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Jade,

quote:

---

Don't we indoctrine all kinds of beliefs to our children in other areas as they are growing?

---

quote:

---

indoctrinate

To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.


v : teach doctrines to; teach uncritically; "The Moonies indoctrinate their disciples"

---

Not to the extent that I meant when I mentioned indoctrinate together with baptism and confirmation. I see teaching information and systems of information gathering, coupled with the necessary skills and foundations to function in society to be vastly different than deciding for the child in question what his/her belief is and making decisions for the child based on this.

In short, I see raising and teaching a child, much different than indoctrinating it into a belief system.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Those like Jade and to a lesser degree Bug, who feel the need to proselytize, are just looking for re-assurance that what they believe is correct. "The more people who believe the way I do, the more I am sure I am right". This reveals a deeply rooted, but not yet admitted, insecurity about their faith in my opinion.

---

Perhaps for some this is the reason; very probably so. I am pretty firm in my beliefs when it comes to xianity though, and I honestly can tell you I don't spread the message to bolster my faith. It is precisely because I'm so convinced of its veracity that it makes me want to share. You have to put yourself in my shoes to understand. I believe that there is an actual way to live forever in harmony with the Creator. I'm not talking in abstract here, I am speaking quite literally. If you believed that, then you would also want those whom you love to share in it. It is really that simple. I know you disagree, but I would ask you to understand the positions of those with whom you disagree.

quote:

---

jade said:

Bugs & I know why we feel compelled to do it. It is Christ who lives in us. It is he who speaks even if we are imperfect with sin. We are just the vessels he uses. Every good thought, word or deed comes from faith. Christians may differ in ways of worship to CHrist as Bugs and I do, but it all leads to the same message. Of Christ walk on Calvery to the cross, his embrace of it and death on it for the salvation of the souls of mankind. Its our way of imitating the the life of Christ human that draws us to seek the light that lives in
others.

---

Now that is something I can wholeheartedly support I know it sounds like utter rubbish to many, but I can assure you this is our motivation.

quote:

---

jade said:

Of where does this need to oppose it come from?

---

This, however, I would not have said. Why? Because it is perfectly natural to oppose the gospel message. Christ himself told us the message would not only be hard to accept but that people would want to kill the messengers in many cases. When I do as I asked Ehtheist to do above and place myself in his shoes, I can totally understand the opposition. In fact, I've had Xian zealots and even some cult members hound me about not being in the true religion. You wanna guess how I reacted to that? With extreme opposition! And quite often I was insensed at what I was being told.

So I expect the opposition but remain patient and try my best to be firm in my faith. In a way, it's almost like a dentist pulling teeth. The dental works needs to be done but having a nice dentist is so much better even though it still hurts

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Every parent "forces" their beliefs on their child one way or another. It's how it works. The ideal is that you raise a child capable of making an intelligent informed decision on the important matters in their life. But "intelligent" and "informed" are very relative things, reliant to a great extent upon what kinds of things parents subject their children to.

---

Not to sound repetitive but I agree 100% with DL-44's words on raising children. I think what you are missing, poi, is the realization that *everyone* forces their views on their kids whether it be secular or religious. When children reach a certain age, they become their own people able to make their own decisions.

In the case of infant baptism, the idea is that the faith of the parents is subsituted for the child until such time as the child *can choose for itself*. The Roman Catholic church does not force anyone to remain Catholic once they reach adulthood.

poi, it almost sounds to me you are dangerously close to advocating the "outlawing" of religion for children. Do you realize how hypocritical that sounds? Tolerance is a two way street! Freedom of religion should be a fundamental right for everyone. The case of children being raised by their parents is an exception as DL and others have explained. Someone has to raise children *until* they are old enough to make their own decisions and the best equipped for that job are the parents. The key point is made in your own words "Sure, when the child grows older it can choose..."

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Web. So you believe early todlers shouldn't get instruction on faith at a very early age at all?. I mean we know washing our teeth at a very early age keep are teeth in good shape to carry us to our old age. We do a lot of preventative maintenance on our bodies from an early age. Why not the soul as well? This is the Christian ideology.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I must say that I am a little intrigued that this is an issue that 'hit you hard' in your 20's...it clearly illustrates the difference in our views in general.Everything dies.

~shrug~

Accepting that from the start saves a lot of grief later on, I'd say

---

This thread has gone so far, I nearly forgot about this bit way back up there. I guess this one needs a bit more explaining I've been a believer since childhood and I was baptized when I was 10 years old. I always knew intellectually what my faith taught and such, but when you're a kid you really do have a sense of immortality and death seems far far away. (at least when you grow up in the conditions I did)

There came a point after I had finished school and gone out into the work force and was living on my own that I started thinking about how all the things I was working on would just fade away someday. All the *things* I was placing my time and efforts into would become dust and it was depressing. The book of Ecclesiastes is a great one to read regarding this by the way. The verses about how Christ promised that we would not perish but actually live forever with him in glory started *feeling* much much more relevant to me even though I had always knew about them. It started making sense in a real way as opposed to a book smart way. I hope that helps explain that better.

DL-44, I hear you saying that we should accept the distasteful reality of death. Is that right? If so, I can appreciate that and I have done so. But what I was trying to pinpoint was that it is, at its very root, distasteful. Why is that? Why doesn't the idea of dying and fading into nothing give us the same feeling as say watching your child being born? Do you see what I'm driving at or am I losing you on this?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus: I'm not advocating to outlaw religion for children, far from it. I'm advocating for not infringing the right of the children to choose wisely their cult. Indeed the freedom of religion is a fundamental right for everyone. Why should the case of children be an exception ? On contrary children are more vulnerables/easily influenced so respecting their rights is even more important. Actually regarding that the parents should be careful that their children do not embrace too avidly a cult, but go at their own pace and realize what they are doing. I'm aware a hell lot of parents instil their religion into their children but again this is not a reason to turn the head.

My exact phrase is :

quote:

---

Sure, when the child grows older it can choose, but the evil is already done. In the facts most are locked forever as extremely little people know they can cancel their baptem and therefore be removed of the registers of the churches.

---

The meaning is not exactly the same as what the first words suggest.


jade:

quote:

---

We do a lot of preventative maintenance on our bodies from an early age. Why not the soul as well?

---

Probably because not washing one's teeth is harmful while not believing is not.



(Edited by poi on 03-09-2005 17:41)

The child who becomes an adult has the responsibility for his/her own path. The idea that they are "locked in" to a forced way of thinking is absurd. Every human being has free will to choose their own path and no other human being can touch that and even God chooses not to.

I think you're missing the fact that *every* child is indoctrinated by those who raise it *without* exception.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I don't have any particular problem with teaching children about faith so long as the choice to follow any one particular faith is their's alone. Make a point of introducing them to all kinds of faith and teach them the reasons WHY you chose to follow the one you did. I find it painfully obvious that without want or interest the young do not yearn for understanding or commitment. I know that sentiment was reflected in my younger years as it was in many peoples childhoods.

I also find it interesting that, for those people who have had absolutely no chance to convert or believe in christianity because they are never introduced to it, there is no redemption. No punishment either mind you, but no reward for a life lived well. Why is that? Becuase they were never able to choose to follow Christianty in lieu of another faith or no faith. So choice matters in that instance. Wouldn't that also be applicable to those who have only followed one religion because they never had the choice to follow another? Is that true faith or generational regurigitation through the ages? Is there a "thinning" of faith as the virtues of the family are pushed onto the children and never truly understood or believed by the children? In the absence of choice is there any true commitment to the faith?

In regards to baptism. I was baptised into the catholic church. In point of fact I was also confirmed into the catholic church. I am not catholic. Niether of those ceremonies hurt me or obligated me in any way to remain catholic. What it did do is obligate my parents and god parents to teach me about only one faith to the exclusion of others. I find that to be of extreme disservice to myself, not to mention the church. True faith of those who choose to follow the church of their own wont will always outweigh the faith of the automoton who goes to church because they don't know what else they can do. Will I baptise my children? To be honest... I don't know. Probably not. But only because I find religion a farce. I will certainly teach my children to believe and follow God, but never a church. Feel free to follow Man... I choose to follow only God.

GD

quote:

---

Probably because not washing one's teeth is harmful while not believing is not.

---

While that is an opinion that I agree with, it is still only an opinion.

Trying to make things like the baptism of a child an issue of the child's rights is beyond silly, as I said earlier, it is actually totally insane.

Yes, a person should be able to choose.

They should be able to choose their religion. They should be able to choose the style of clothing they wear, the style of music they listen to, the field of study they wish to pursue, whether or not ot be sexually active, or to do drugs, and many other things.

But to leave the child uninstructed in such matters, and completely open to their own choice, is *totally* irresponisble and defeats the purpose of having parents in the first place.

Let me reiterate: parents by necessity determine the course on which a child begins, and builds upon that throughtou their lifetime. If that includes religion, so be it. It is not a matter of the child's rights, it is a matter of the parent's obligation. You can't jsut leave a kid without instruction, and hope someday down the road the pick the right path.

Of course the "right" path is completely a matter of opinion, and a christian or a jew or a muslim has every right to teach these things to their child, in the same way that I have the right to restrict the type of clothing my daughter wears, in the same way that I explain the questions she comes to me with about life in *my* way, therefore "forcing" my views on her just like a christian would in the same situation.

{{edit -
to expand slightly:
no matter what religious background you are from, when you have a family you establish traditions of a variety of kinds. When you do so, you also establish *reasons* for them. According to your approach, doing so is "forcing" views on the child, and violating their rights.
That's insane.



Though I've obviously managed to say plenty here...I'm really a t a bit of a loss on this. It is just absolutely not a matter of the child's rights in such a case.

It's about parental obligation.



(Edited by DL-44 on 03-09-2005 18:34)

quote:

---

So you believe early todlers shouldn't get instruction on faith at a very early age at all?

---

Jade, I have nothing in principle against a mother or father attempting to explain things to their child, especially when it comes to one's faith or beliefs. But there is a difference in presenting ones beliefs and explainations for things to a child, and actual indoctrination and rituals of indoctrination. My people were the brunt of such indoctrination programs from Xians. Ugly stuff, IMHO.

Actually going through rituals apparently only designed to indoctrinate does seem to go to far, IMHO. I was (and I still am) outraged that my daughter has been baptized against my will.

quote:

---

I mean we know washing our teeth at a very early age keep are teeth in good shape to carry us to our old age. We do a lot of preventative maintenance on our bodies from an early age. Why not the soul as well?

---

Because there is no proof that the soul is being maintained, as there is with brushing your teeth properly.

Your daughter was baptized against your will? Can you please explain how that happened?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

GD

Its not as if people in this century live in a taped in cardboard box. Most know the ways of the world and have freedom to choose in this age of technology. You say "don't know, what else they can do" as if they have been brainwashed and are stuck in an organized religion against their will. In this century through the many different forms on communicative technology you can tap into all religions and be aware of what their belief systems are and if they could be for you. You think once a person is baptized into a faith they can never leave it. This is not true. Many leave and never come back. Some leave and follow their own path. Some return after a long hiatus. No one is handcuffed in any kind of church building. They are free to go about. Its like not giving religious people any credit in that they have the common sense or wisdom to make choices for themselves is what I am gathering from you post.

It is in the mindset of most people of faith that the soul as Bugs pointed out earlier needs spiritual food as the body needs food to survive in this world. Just that we believe the spiritual food gives us everlasting life beyond death. Its like saying to your child in teaching them about life we say, " Don't go near the fire or you might get burned" Or, " when you cross the street look both ways, because if you don't a car can kill you or hurt you" We feel the same ways in faith. We teach them, if you don't follow the way of Christ, they can be lost forever and because we love and are their caretakers we are responsible for revealing the message of Christ, because we are bound by baptism to do so.

Teaching your child at very early age about good and evil is necessary or they will make the wrong choices. They must form a conscience from somewhere. In throwing out all these different religions at them growing up how can you accomplish this? Would you take them to synagogue one week, to a temple the next, a catholic the next, then a Baptist church, then Muslim? This would be damaging instead of helping them I feel.

DL-44: I've never heard about someone who felt bad because he/she did not believe. On the other hand not washing your teeth really is harmful.

Did I say that parents should not inform their children that some people believe in a superior being in various ways and through various rituals ? No.
There's a lot of occasions to talk about religions to children.

Baptizing a child without its wise approval is far beyond the simple and normal fact of informing it about the religions. It's involving and pushing it into a religion. That practice is so common that it makes me sound extreme when I say it is an infrigement of the freedom of cult of the children, but the fact remain : zillions of children are baptized each year without their approval.

Most atheists I know are resigned and do not even question the fact that their parents did not asked their opinion to baptize them. THAT is insane.

Bugs, I am divorced and in Germany, where as a man I have little rights when it comes to the raising of my child, my daughter. My ex-wife decided to baptize my daughter, and there was nothing I could do about it.

quote:

---

Teaching your child at very early age about good and evil is necessary or they will make the wrong choices.

---

That I disagree with. Good and evil just do not exist. Show this to me, prove that they do exist. Teaching a child right and wrong ways of doing things is something different than good and evil, IMHO.

quote:

---

parents by necessity determine the course on which a child begins, and builds upon that throughtou their lifetime.

---

I agree with this, because it is true.

But there are things, that we deem not within the rights of parents to decide - and I do think that such steps like indoctrination rituals should be reserved for adulthood like most others are - driving, voting, drinking, and being able to join the military, for example.

Now, I'm not suggesting some kind of law - just a sense of responsibility and a sense of what is appropriate.

Oh. Well, that has nothing at all to do with the church, WS. Your situation is about a disagreement between you and your ex-wife in raising your daughter. For a second there I thought you were saying the government mandated baptism or some such thing. So if you and your wife agreed on not having her baptized, then that would have been that... correct?

And just for the record, I don't think baptizing children is a valid xian ritual. This is an area where jade and I would disagree. I believe baptism only applies to children who are at an age to request it and understand its purpose.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus:

quote:

---

I believe baptism only applies to children who are at an age to request it and understand its purpose.

---

God bless you!

quote:

---

inform their children that some people believe in a superior being in various ways and through various rituals ?

---

I'm not talking about providing an eduaction of other* people's religions.

If a parent has religious convictions, there is absolutely no good reason not to impart them to their child.

The child's "consent" is irrelevant, the same way it is in regard to any other aspect of the family lifestyle.

You are over reacting to a incredible degree by making this an issue of rights.

In WS' case, things are more complicated. You have conflicting views of the parents. Totally diferent issue.

quote:

---

God bless you!

---

Poi


ITs good to see a blessing coming from you. I misunderstood you I guess. I thought you were a non-beliver. Is this blessing sincere

Jade -

quote:

---

Most know the ways of the world and have freedom to choose in this age of technology. You say "don't know, what else they can do" as if they have been brainwashed and are stuck in an organized religion against their will.

---

You're right, I do. It is the encouragement of one religion in their youth and an active discouragement of researching other religions of which I speak. Will you teach your children the ways of other religions and their practices and reasons for doing things. The Gods other religions follow and then express to them that you don't mind if they follow those religions or will you tell them of other religions and then tell them that's not what they and the rest of their family follow and that their souls will be lost forever and that the rest of their family will not approve of what they are doing? While the second case is most likely and not "wrong" (according to your beliefs) it certainly isn't an objective place for a child to start from. It is an extremely powerful impression that most will not be willing or able to overcome.

quote:

---

You think once a person is baptized into a faith they can never leave it. This is not true. Many leave and never come back. Some leave and follow their own path.

---

No, I do not and I stated as much. Please read what I wrote.

quote:

---

Its like not giving religious people any credit in that they have the common sense or wisdom to make choices for themselves is what I am gathering from you post.

---

Good, that's basically what I said to a certain extent. Religious people have plenty of common sense and wisdom to draw on and are perfectly capable of making choices for themselves. Unfortunately they try to make those choices for others as well. If Xianity is the be all end all of religion is should be the obvious choice for all those who search for a religion to follow. Obviously, this is not the case. Whether or not the religious can choose things for themselves or not isn't my issue here however. It's that they are taking their cues from a man-made institution or if you prefer; a God made institution run by man. I can't have faith in such a thing. It is akin to having faith in government. I have faith in basic human decency that people hired to do what is best for me will do so. I cannot have faith in an institution. It is the people I have faith in. In the case of religion or Theology (as I prefer). There are no people, only God. I have faith in God (by God, you must understand, I mean all Gods of all faiths. God just seems to be the term you and most are familiar with.) not in the people who represent God. I don't judge you for what religion you believe. I judge you by how you live your life. What religion you believe in is unimportant.

quote:

---

It?s like saying to your child in teaching them about life we say, " Don't go near the fire or you might get burned" Or, " when you cross the street look both ways, because if you don't a car can kill you or hurt you" We feel the same ways in faith. We teach them, if you don't follow the way of Christ, they can be lost forever and because we love and are their caretakers we are responsible for revealing the message of Christ, because we are bound by baptism to do so.

---

The first two examples are fact. The last example is opinion. Again, regardless of that, it does not give children a good basis for challenging the faith they have been given by starting them off with fear of being lost for eternity to those who love them most. Teaching of that sort is derived from a church mentality that, "Our religion is the best and only true religion, all others lead to certain doom". Well, to be honest, that is your opinion and you should teach your children that. But you should also teach them that other religions say the same exact thing. After which you should explain to them exactly why you chose to follow the religion you chose to follow. Then let them choose. Besides that, Teaching your children religion is completely different from teaching them about Christ and God. If you taught from a purely Christ driven mentality I think you would find that it doesn't much matter which mainstream Christ believing religion you are a member of the underlying belief holds true and it is THAT choice that they are actually being denied.

quote:

---

Teaching your child at very early age about good and evil is necessary or they will make the wrong choices. They must form a conscience from somewhere. In throwing out all these different religions at them growing up how can you accomplish this? Would you take them to synagogue one week, to a temple the next, a catholic the next, then a Baptist church, then Muslim? This would be damaging instead of helping them I feel.

---

As I am certain you would. I however am not teaching from a religious point of view. I am teaching from a point of view in which all Gods are the same God and that religion is of no consequence. I will teach them about all religions and their practices and world viewpoints and I will explain to them why I don't follow a religion and yet believe in God. I am not going to teach my child something that points them in the direction of bigotry. That is not what I want the world to be and that is not the world I want my child(ren) to live in. My child(ren) will be taught the difference between tolerance and equality to the exclusion of those people/institutions that promote neither.

GD

(Edited by GrythusDraconis on 03-09-2005 20:38)

quote:

---

As I am certain you would. I however am not teaching from a religious point of view. I am teaching from a point of view in which all Gods are the same God and that religion is of no consequence. I will teach them about all religions and their practices and world viewpoints and I will explain to them why I don't follow a religion and yet believe in God. I am not going to teach my child something that points them in the direction of bigotry. That is not what I want the world to be and that is not the world I want my child(ren) to live in. My child(ren) will be taught the difference between tolerance and equality to the exclusion of those people/institutions that promote neither.

---

+

Ok. I respect your opinion and how you want to raise your children, so shouldn't you respect other ways as well. Some may think you are wrong to do this, and for you it is the right way to go. So why are you so concerned with the way a person should bring up children if it does no harm to yours? Aren't you thinking the same way you accuse christians. In the I am right, they are wrong attitude you accuse them of. Parents by rights can bring up their children how they see fit in their own ideologies. Why should you pry into either household of faith? Christians teach tolerance and are against bigtory too. Are you accquainted with very many christians?

(Edited by jade on 03-09-2005 21:09)

jade: It's a mistery to nobody than I'm an atheist. My "God bless you!" remark toward Bugimus was like a 2 blades sword. It's an humoristic stroke in regard of my religious conviction, AND a sincere approval of his point of view about the baptem.

DL-44: I'm talking about providing an education of religions. It does not exclude the religious conviction of the parents themselves.
I don't see why the child's conscent should be considered irrelevant. The baptem is a personnal commitment and should not be imposed.

My claim about the infrigement of rights is based on confrontation of the facts and the laws/constitution. The situation have gone for long that it seems natural. The baptem is not an act void of sense and conscequences.

Don't worry, I'm lucid about my weigh on the society. I won't fight against windmills. And as I said in other occasions, I bark more than I bite

I knew it wasn't for me poi

Yes, actually I am aquainted with many Christians. That doesn't keep me from finding it difficult to believe that people and/or institutions of Xianity can promote tolerance and denounce bigotry while promoting only their own religion and denouncing all others (including those under the same umbrella). Is that not the definition of Bigotry?

quote:

---

Aren't you thinking the same way you accuse christians. In the I am right, they are wrong attitude you accuse them of.

---

No, I am not. My assumption is that there is no "right". The only thing religion has an impact on is how it helps or hinders our interactions with other people. In the case of how you've described teaching religion to your children, it seems to me that religion is helping you remove choice of religion from your children. You haven't rebutted my previous statements about selectively teaching your children so I assume you are in agreement with them.

Perhaps it would make more sense were I to add that, if my child(ren) CHOOSE to follow the path of religion rather than what I believe I will not stand in their way, denounce them for their choice or any other such thing. I'm not going to to dissuade them from something that helps them get along with other people. If believing as I do makes them unhappy and unable to relate to other people it becomes my responsibilty if my child(ren) do anything admonishable because of that. I don't care what they choose. I would prefer that they believe as I do. I do not require it of them. I will teach them everything I can and explain the reasons for my choice. They will, by default, gain knowledge of how that choice impacts my life. I'm not going to teach what I have chosen as the only, nor the better choice of all I present. You can only teach when there is a correct and incorrect solution, everything else is guidance. When there is no "wrong" answer how do you PRESUME to correct them when they want something other than what you have taught them? One other thing to note is that the issue of deity is not going to be brought up by me. They will ask when want to learn about it. I'm not going to be "throwing these religions out" at them. As I stated before. Until they are interested they will not gain any real knowledge.

GD

(Edited by GrythusDraconis on 03-09-2005 22:13)

quote:

---

Well, that has nothing at all to do with the church, WS. Your situation is about a disagreement between you and your ex-wife in raising your daughter. For a second there I thought you were saying the government mandated baptism or some such thing. So if you and your wife agreed on not having her baptized, then that would have been that... correct?

---

I am aware that it has nothing to do with the church forcing something on my child against my ex-wife's will - but it is against mine (and quite frankly, they didn't care, even when I approached the priest of the parish there about it - he just gave me some bullsh*t about her "immortal soul" and since I could not produce a court order opposing the baptism, went ahead with it). The church apparently wasn't interested in what I wanted for my daughter - I do have joint rights (I secured this under the law before a judge in a court of law - it "only" took me four years of constant fighting to accomplish this). It, however was not possible to get a court order to stop the proceedings in time and yes, I feel violated about that. Obtaining some sort of "reversal", or writ stating that I was right would be pointless after the fact, wouldn't it?

I wish to be very clear on this particular issue here - my lawfully granted rights and my will as a parent were violated by the church (and by my ex-wife) against my will knowingly.

As far as I know, the German government does not mandate baptism - but it does teach Xistian religion in the public schools (there is now a big fuss about including Islam into this program)..

Had my ex-wife and I come to an agreement against my daughter being baptised, then that would have been that, yes.

I am not sure how commonplace my example is. I do know that the divorce rate in most western countries has exploded in modern times. In any regards, I found the situation very unpleasant. Don't get me started on schooling issues - those are still a sore point that molder in a dark corner of my psych. There is nothing like watching your child be slowly programmed by someone else, and you are powerless to do anything about it, and powerless to affect it much (I get 4 days a month with my child, out of 30). I would not wish that on anyone.

GD, thanks for the insights. You're sharing some good stuff with us in your posts. Your points are clear and detailed. I would like to respond to this one:

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:

It is the encouragement of one religion in their youth and an active
discouragement of researching other religions of which I speak. Will you teach
your children the ways of other religions and their practices and reasons for
doing things. The Gods other religions follow and then express to them that you
don't mind if they follow those religions or will you tell them of other
religions and then tell them that's not what they and the rest of their family
follow and that their souls will be lost forever and that the rest of their
family will not approve of what they are doing? While the second case is most
likely and not "wrong" (according to your beliefs) it certainly isn't an
objective place for a child to start from. It is an extremely powerful
impression that most will not be willing or able to overcome.

---

I will teach my children about other religions openly and with as much accuracy as I possibly can. Just as I want them to be well versed in science and literature, I want them very knowledgeable about the world's religions.

But if I taught them that I didn't mind them following any religion, wouldn't that be tad amount to telling them religion was irrelevant? So the logical conclusion they would draw from my position would be that I was wasting my time following one of them. It would place me in a rather ridiculous position I should think. Rather, I will teach them that the religion I chose was, to the best of my ability, the correct one and a worthwhile one to follow. Because if I didn't beleive that to be true, there would be no good reason to practice it in the first place.

If they chose to follow another religion then they are most certainly free to do so but I will not lie to them by telling them it's perfectly fine. The idea of impressing my religion upon them is actually precisely the idea as I hold these concepts to be true:

quote:

---

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.
--Proverbs 22:6

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
--Ephesians 6:4

---

quote:

---

GrythusDraconis said:

I'm not going to teach what I have chosen as the only, nor the better choice of
all I present.

---

Will this effectively tell your kids that religion is pointless? And isn't that exactly your view? So won't you really be teaching them your way, if not explicitly, then by example?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus:

quote:

---

But if I taught them that I didn't mind them following any religion, wouldn't that be tad amount to telling them religion was irrelevant?

---

I doubt it. IMHO the impact of saying your children you don't mind which religion they'll follow is equivalent to that of telling them you don't mind which profession they'll do. It says that you have confidence in them and whatever they choose/do you'll love them and respect their choice.

They should be able to understand that everybody has its own reason to believe or not in this or that religion. Religious beliefs are personnals.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that my children will always be loved by me and that their right to choose their own religion will be respected. I don't think anything I said above would contradict that.

I believe children learn far more from how their parents live their lives than by what their parents say. So if the parents don't practice a religion honestly and fervently, the children will see that it really wasn't important enough to the parents in the first place. This is my opinion.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

That is my exact view also Bugs. The children will for the most part emulate the acts of their parents as important role models in their lifetime more than any other persons they come across. The core of belief of what the household practices makes the most impact on a child. Children must have roots as an identifier and this is relating to faith matters also.
So "faith iin God is a good thing"

(Edited by jade on 03-09-2005 23:33)

I did not questioned your love and respect of your children. My post was purely about your interrogation about the feeling of irrelevancy of the religion that could leave an unconditionnal freedom of religion on the children.

To go on second paragraph of your last post. We've all made some choices without relying on what our parents did or thought. I'm pretty sure some children of atheists have found God.



(Edited by poi on 03-09-2005 23:31)

Yes. As I mentioned earlier here or another thread, by default they will learn my choice and how it affects my life. I'm pretty sure that would be my viewpoint even if I did follow a particular religion. It isn't so much a choice of what religion to follow or not follow. It is freedom to choose the path that lets you... shine, for lack of a better term. Just because religion doesn't work for me doesn't mean that it won't be fitting for one of my children. It may well be that they want something more structured than I do or want to follow an amalgamation of ideas from many religions. The specifics of the religion are irrelevant because the underlying theme of almost every religion is the same. "Get along with each other."

I am not trying to invalidate what you would and should, teach your children, nor dictate what that should be, but I see it as being far more servicable to the church and humankind for everyone to be at ease with themselves and their relationship with God and each other. With religions at each others throats I don't see that as being possible. Your beliefs tell you to teach your children a specific way. Good. Just don't make teaching that belief the last thing they listen too. I believe I have far more important things to teach my children then religion. Their relationship with God is of their own devising and follows the path that they dictate. I'm just here to make the introductions.

The underlying difference between our viewpoints is you believe religion is important and I do not. It makes it almost impossible to compare our situations.

The statements I make have to be placed in a certain context. You will teach your children what you know and what you believe and you want them to follow what you believe. If they choose NOT to follow what you believe you will be dissappointed at the least I should think.. but you won't dissassociate yourself from them I would imagine. I also hope you wouldn't hound them about it continuously either. What you describe to me above is exactly what I mean with my previous posts. Teach them all religions, explain your choice. They will decide based on how you taught them and who you are and what they have learned. Whether you state that you are fine if they follow some other religion then yours or not, they will believe that you won't renounce them if they find something they feel suits them better. I know this and I'm not related and only know you via the web. They will choose anyway.

What would you do if they were truly unhappy with Xianity? So unhappy it was a detriment to how they got along with other people but they stayed with that belief because of your beliefs about it? (Keep in mind I find it hard to believe you could raise someone who didn't get along with everyone ) I just find that a heartbreaking situation. If they believe in God and Christ... or even just God and it makes them get along with people and live well and all they don't need is the stand up, sit down, sing this song or whatever the particulars of your faith are... does it matter so much? Should someone stay in a religion that causes them strife because it is the "Right" one? We already know that that determination is impossible without some grand intervention. Which brings up the point of Religion is pointless. Relgion is the mental masturbation of what someone would LIKE things to be like. You know... there are some religions that explain very well what I would like things to be like. You want to know something else. I followed them for many years. After a while I realized that all I was doing was finding what I liked and following what was closest. To quote myself:

quote:

---

Well that's just damn stupid.

---

I now live my life toward making what you would call heaven happen here on earth. Right HERE where it matters the most.

My.. my... I uh... kinda went off there. I really hope I answered what you were asking in that mess I made up there. If I didn't... well... ask again and I'll... I'll sift better.

GD

quote:

---

So won't you really be teaching them your way, if not explicitly, then by example?

---

And that's the bottom line.

Whether the view you impart are religious in nature, or anti religious, you are still imparting your view on your child.

Whether by action, or by lack of action. Like the old saying 'by not choosing, you have still chosen'

Again let me say that the issue WS speaks of and the issue Poi speaks of are drastically different.

A parent *must* choose what type of life a child will lead.

Eventually, the child will have grown, and during that process make decisions for themselves. But the parent must set them on what they percieve as the right track.

It is an OBLIGATION to do so. It is not a matter of children's "rights" in any way shape or form. Period.

To suggest that it is is a gross misunderstanding of ethics and law.

DL-44: I agree with you that the parents must raise their children in what they perceive as the right track. But they shouldn't let the freedom of choice of their children aside.

I know my claim about the importance of children's right to choose their religion themselves might sound extreme to some people. In essence it means that to me it's wrong to raise children within a single system of belief. Actually GrythusDraconis expressed that way better than me.

quote:

---

I know my claim about the importance of children's right to choose their religion themselves might sound extreme to some people. In essence it means that to me it's wrong to raise children within a single system of belief. Actually GrythusDraconis expressed that way better than me.

---

Children cannot choose their own religion. What would be your advice on how they would make a choice? To belong to a sect requires much dedication, wisdom and understanting of the faiths principles. By study, thought and practice we acquire the discipline. How can we think children will able to choose as a very young child or preteen in the fundamentals. Wisdom in all things comes from the experience of life and faith instructs us how to apply faith principles to daily living. One can only achieve this if it is learned. If the parents are not religious, or practicing in any form of organized religion there will be no structure or foundation for the child to build on. How can we expect our children to choose if we ourselves cannot choose? We do a tragic injustice to our own offspring in not providing a source or channel in which the child can communiate with what calls him to reason in his quest to wonder why they exist in this world. We all as adult humans still have this undeniable quest to find truth. How will you be able to direct them as atheist or lacking in a faith to understand this desire? What will you tell them when they find out they are going to die and start to fear this as a child and start to cry. Are you going to tell them " When you grow up, you can form your own opinion on life & death and choose how you want to believe because I did and I have been happy up to this point as your daddy or mommy." I feel this is wrong and could give a child so many insecurities. Children are so delicate, fagile, impressionable and gullible. They believe everything you tell them. They do because you do. They love because you love. And they will hate when you hate because most bigotry starts in the home and they imitate you. So to have them choose coming from a Godless home doesn't make any sense or give them a chance. Children usually end up having the degee of faith the parents have. If it was lacking, then they will lack in faith until or if they are born again .

(Edited by jade on 03-10-2005 03:38)

jade: Come on, an adult can well learn the faith principles.

quote:

---

How can we expect our children to choose if we ourselves cannot choose?

---

As DL-44 reminded : 'by not choosing, you have still chosen'

Children do not question the ins and outs of mankind every day. Usually they care more about playing footbal, video games, climbing in trees, ... When they have a question, parents should try to anwser in words the child understand and shouldn't go too in depth. I mean if the answer given already fulfills the curiosity of child, there's no need to elaborate further on a subject that goes above its head ( and above the head of many adults too ). Such task does not seem out of reach for an atheist or believing parent.

quote:

---

Children usually ending having the the degee of faith taught at home. If it was lacking, then they will lack in faith unitl of if they are born again.

---

You answer to your fear yourself. People not raised in religion can be born again. Anyway, regardless of your convictions, if an atheist feels good that way and makes no harm to others is it such a bad thing ? Does he/she absolutely have to adhere to a cult to find grace to the eyes of the believers ?

One CAN raise kids without forcing one's own views upon them. My daughter is a case in point, as she grew older and started asking questions about religion I was careful to give her unbiased responses and encourage as I wanted her to make her own choice when she was old enough. As it happened she too is an aetheist, but not from input from me. Her maternal grandparents are such miserable, bible-thumping, intolerant individuals, they drove her as far from religion as she could get.

I admit I am pleased.

She too was baptized against my will...they were baby-sitting one day and just got it done. The good news is, it has not hurt her any.

Children should not be subjected to unbalanced religious information at all. They should, if they must, be taught about all religious faiths and Aetheism and then be under no pressure to choose any of them.

Don't hold your breath, that will indeed be the day the lion lies with the lamb.

The religiouis are terrified if they don't indoctrinate their young they may find a mind of their own. Many do anyway. Many grow up with the religious handicap.

Parents may not know this is why they inculcate their children thus, that is because they have been successfully brainwashed by their parents or church or both.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Children should not be subjected to unbalanced religious information at all. They should, if they must, be taught about all religious faiths and Aetheism and then be under no pressure to choose any of them.

---

And that is a very logical.

*If* you are an atheist.

It can as well be said that a child should be raised with no 'unbalanced' view of right or worng - they should choose themesleves, or no one view on anything else. Just throw them out there and let them choose everything themselves...

Yes, you want you rchild to be able to choose things for themselves. But until they reach an age where they can do that, it is your job as a parent to influence them in such a way that they will make (what is, in YOUR view) good choices.

It is absolutely absurd to think that your view, as an atheist, has not been influential on your daughter. It is absurd to think that you have not pushed your views on her in one way or another. Perhaps yo didn't say "I'm an atheist, and you will be too", but it doesn't take such explicit things to pass on your views.

And again, you must realize - however much you or I may disagree with christian views, if a parent is convinced that not living the right way will condem their child to hell for eternity, they *must* act accordingly. There isn't room for a debate about whether they are right or wrong in their religious belief.

Just to give an example on death and dying issue with children. My father-in-law died when my son was four. And my son Michael was very close to his grandfather. After he suddenly died, my son took it very hard and would cry and cry about it. And his main concern was that his grandpa was by himself in the cemetery in the dark and the horrible knowledge that he was under the ground. He was worried about him and that his body was by itself. I then explained how the angels took his grandpa to God in heaven and who grandpa really was is no longer in the ground. He is with his own father and mother and many relatives in heaven. So do not worry and that grandpa is happy. This still wouldn't console him. So, I then drew pictures of the whole story of the death. His death bed, his spirit leaving the body, and the body in the coffin, and the burial. I drew clouds and a picture of Jesus with his arms outstretched and his grandpa with him. And this is when he felt a peace about it. Since then, he never has come to me with questions of his dying, but I believe since we practice a faith in our household and that my children have a knowledge of the light of God they have can come to terms with their dying. Although they fear death, as many of us do, they believe they will have everlasting life. They all attend church regularly and go in their own car. I don't force them. They have a quest for the study of scripture. I don't make them read scripture. They along with their friends and cousins have religious discussions and debates because it is in them to ponder about the purpose of life.

(Edited by jade on 03-10-2005 16:13)

quote:

---

The religiouis are terrified if they don't indoctrinate their young they may find a mind of their own.

---

i love finding out what i think from reading someone else's post

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

DL you are right and you are wrong in my view.

Wrong to suggest one 'throws' one children out. Let them out but arm them with info first.

Right to suggest they be influenced to make good choices, but of course that is where arming them with information comes in.

Of course one's own attitudes are going to influence one's children, but the point I made was one's own attitudes should not be the only information they recieve. This does not provide them with the best tools.

In my case, my daughter got info from many different sources. In the case of the Jade's of the world, any children would be thrust out into the world with their heads filled with lies, myths, bigotries and misdirections as well as downtight historical inaccuracies.

Jade, your little death scene points out exactly one of the reasons why mankind invented gods and religions...to soothe the fears of reality.

Fig, try to remember much of what is posted here is opinion. Must have struck a nerve though.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Of course one's own attitudes are going to influence one's children, but the point I made was one's own attitudes should not be the only information they recieve.

---

I think that's fair and I would basically agree. I think children should be provided as complete an education as is feasible. Keeping information from them can often backfire. So it is better to go over varying view points with your child to help her learn how to deal with them in the real world.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

In the case of the Jade's of the world, any children would be thrust out into the world with their heads filled with lies, myths, bigotries and misdirections as well as downtight historical inaccuracies.

---

I don't think Jade deserves that if you mean to say that she personally lies and is bigotted. That would be an outright flame I should think. It is your prerogative to regard her positions as such though. I would appreciate clarification that you didn't mean your comments as a flame.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

...to soothe the fears of reality.

---

I ask again, why is death so disturbing to us? If it is just part of the so called "circle of life", why is our initial reaction to it negative? I think I can assume from your theory on how mankind invented gods, that mankind in general had a *need* to do so. How do you answer why this need exists? I am interested in knowing how this is answered from the non-theistic world view.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

I ask again, why is death so disturbing to us?

---

Because we, like all animals, have evolved a fear of death. Those creatures that did not have a fear of death died very rapidly, compared to those creatures that did. Evolution. Fear is a survival mechanism. We humans, as a species, have an extraordinary grasp of the concept of life and death. We also have an extraordinary grasp of the concepts of cause and effect. We also have memory. Thus, we know that once dead, you don't come back. We don't know if there is anything afterwards - there is a lack of information, because the ways that we as humans gather information is not possible to use in the case of exploring death so far. This inspires fear, fear of the unknown, and fear of non-existence.

Death removes the chance to reproduce further for that particular being.

quote:

---

If it is just part of the so called "circle of life", why is our initial reaction to it negative?

---

There are many things that are part of Nature, that we tend to react negatively to - this doesn't mean that it isn't natural. Being cold and wet, for example. Hunger. Thirst. Things that make us sad. Pain.

This "need" (as you call it) is a survival mechanism, and is quite natural (most living creatures have it). As for inventing beings outside of the realm of existence, that is how Mankind has been explaining the unknown since it rose onto it's hind legs and walked, I suppose. The need here is to bring order in a perceived chaos, and attempted understanding of the unknown by ascribing it with more human-like attributes. It makes it much easier to understand these natural occurances and processes when they have human traits.

Oh my, it was generic, but using Jade as a typical example of the type of person, as she portrays hereself on these threads.

If it happens to define her, well, truth hurts.

If it doesn't, then there is no need to get yer knickers in a knot.

As for death, WS did a far better job of answering that than I could have and I agree with him.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:
Fig, try to remember much of what is posted here is opinion.

---

i'd be willing to say most of what's posted here and didn't strike a nerve at all, just found it entertaining.it's always interesting to hear the perspective of someone who's generalized you according to your worldview without knowing you at all.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

We all do the generalization thing, it is just that Ehtheist doesn't keep it in his head =)

Cheers,

Dan @ Code Town

If it is a generalized statement and you take it personaly, it must apply to you.

N'est pas?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Ehtheist: It's " N'est ce pas ? "

again, not so much. more just noting the width of your really big brush

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Poi, in propre French no doubt, in Quebecois the 'ce' has pretty much been done away with phonetically.

My French is gutter Qebecois and long out of use, so please forgive any errors.

Well Fig, if it didn't hit close to home, it seems to me you wouldn't have noticed it or would have simply ignored it.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Really ? That's always funny to see how French Quebecois has evolved separately of the French talked in the hexagon.

quote:

---

Well Fig, if it didn't hit close to home, it seems to me you wouldn't have noticed it or would have simply ignored it.

---

Or it's simply a matter, as Fig has mpretty much stated, of pointing out the fact that your broad generalization is inaccurate and simply doesn't apply to a lot of people.

Having had my views summed up and stuck to me as an atheist, by many an ignorant christian, I can see Fig's pointof view very easily.

It's not a matter of striking a nerve because you're right, it's a matter of annoyance at being summed up in a stereotypcial and shallow manner.

While your statement certainly applies to some, the basic point is there is a great variance in the realm of christian views, and plenty of reigious people who don't fit your nice neat little mold.

The trend you have displayed throughout many of these threads is rather troubling.

You can't knock one isde, and then behave in the same shallow, narrow minded, generalizing manner that you are knocking...

I agree with a lot of the things you say, but you lose so much ground when you do these kinds of things.

nicely summed up DL, thanks.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

I must say that I agree with DL on this one, as well. It is one thing, to weight the facts and to make a decision. It is another, to behave as those you have labeled as not doing so.

Some of those that have been the brunt of this are deserving of this, of course. But others are not. And bunching them all under one blanket is not what I would call a very rational or logical approach.

Just my $.02 on it.

Have it your way, I disagree and stand by what I said.

Poi, Quebecois is French, merely a patois, though there are many who try to speak in the European manner. More interesting yet and the bane of he purists, is "Franglish".

English words, adapted to Quebecois pronunciation, or sometime just plunked down in the middle of a french sentence. This is merely short-hand because French, being one of the a linguistically "dead" languages must rely heavily on compound words to express new concepts. As compound words can be a pain to pronounce and may not convey the meaning precisely the word from the originating language is often used instead.

Makes for a very colourful conversation.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

An example might be something like. '..sacrayblu nome de chevrolet coupe wee wee manure bad smell.'


Back to your regular...bla bla... =)

(Edited by NoJive on 03-12-2005 07:14)

That's cool! This bla bla is also quite good

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Very droll Nojive, very droll indeed.

Some quotes for the faithful to mull over;

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson."

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Religion can, and has, been used in those ways, alas I am extremely troubled by how the great religions of this world have been used for evil purposes. But it does not logically follow that all religion is therefore based in myth and lies. I would recommend taking a look at "When Religion Becomes Evil" by Charles Kimball. I've got the book and scanned it but haven't read cover to cover yet.

Thomas Jefferson was a believer. It is quite true he did not accept orthodox Christianity but he most certainly believed in God. I would be very interested to know what you think about that. Do you regard him in the same light as the "religious" you rail against so strongly?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-13-2005 16:56)

Right, Bugs. It can be and it has been and all religions are not equal. To be blunt, the basis of the religion is unimportant however.

Look at it this way. Even if a religion is based on the truth, it can be and probably already has been, used in the same ways that other religions distort their histories to suit their wants. Religion is a man based institution and is subject to man's flaws, of which there are many but one typically stands out --> Greed. I don't find it at all surprising that the views of the church today are of a greedy, power hungry institution. I see that as humankinds biggest flaw. The fact that Greed is reflected within the actions of many religions only reinforces my belief that religion isn't a fitting arena to learn faith. To practice it... perhaps, but certainly not to learn it.

GD

I completely agree that even if particular religion were true, it can be perveted and abused by humans.

Faith that is not practiced is not faith at all. Therein lies the rub

This world is imperfect and faith practices here will also be imperfect. I don't see any way around that. So that leaves two choices. Either we keep faith a purely theoretical abstract in our minds or we do our best to implement its precepts knowing full well it cannot be done perfectly but believing that trying is better than doing nothing. I love this quote about walking that line:

quote:

---

Longing for the ideal while criticizing the real is evidence of immaturity. On the other hand, settling for the real without striving for the ideal is complacency. Maturity is living with the tension.

--Rick Warren

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I prefer "walk it like you talk it", and it applies to all walks of life, IMHO, not just faith and/or religion.

I believe I read somewhere Jefferson was a deist;

"The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus." Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority.

Deists:

Do not accept the belief of most religions that God revealed himself to humanity through the writings of the Bible, the Qur'an or other religious texts.
Disagree with strong Atheists who assert that there is no evidence of the existence of God.

They regard their faith as a natural religion, as contrasted with one that is revealed by a God or which is artificially created by humans. They reason that since everything that exists has had a creator, then the universe itself must have been created by God. Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after the French Revolution with: "God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

http://www.teachingaboutreligion.com/Freethought/deists.htm

I approve of the deist rejection of religion, but disagree with their belief there once was a god.

As for Jefferson, his comment is as valid today as it was then. Benny Hinn is living proof, one of many.

Other than liking the quote, I have no opinion of him.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

They reason that since everything that exists has had a creator, then the universe itself must have been created by God.

---

The first part of that statement hasn't been proven, therefore it doesn't support the second part of that statement.

quote:

---

I approve of the deist rejection of religion, but disagree with their belief there once was a god.

---

Um, I would assume that most deists would believe that there still is a god.

I think that definition of God varies from deist to deist, since there are no standards on what their beliefs are based upon, or anything to support and back up their beliefs (such as scripture etc)

Based on the link Etheist provided, one could argue that deist are in no way men of faith. Since they do not seem to hold faith in anything, not even deity who supposedly for them set the universe in motion.

They rather act based upon the natural and rational law and seem to reject any form of superstition....

I dunno just my 2 cents

Yer right Biggl, the didn't reason that one out did they?

Can't help but agree Ruski

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

From my recollection (which may be faulty), though there were those among the revolutionary americans who were deists (Thomas Paine comes to mind as a prominent example), Jefferson himself was decidedly christian (like many of his southern brethren).

He has some of my favorite quotes, but unfortunately was also very dragged down by the hypocrisy of his surroundings, of which he indulged himself plenty. His 'notes on virginia' (don't recall the exact title) bring out some views, particularly in the area of race, that most modern fans prefer to ignore...