Christianity cured his homosexual tendencies...

[StinkyPete1000]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/02/05/matt-moore-grindr-ex-gay-christian-blogger_n_2622614.html

Come on buddy. Just be yourself...

[bluesoul]

that guy reminds me of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKstGRETU9A

[RallyCola]

Christianity probably caused his homosexual tendencies.

[StinkyPete1000]

Haha!

On a serious note, this type of stuff is precisely why I don't believe in God and think religion stinks. This guy went from living one lie (hiding the fact he was gay initially) to another (pretending he had somehow magically become straight) all in the name of a mystical beard spirit who lives in the sky and grants miracles when he so chooses (however he always seems to have a hand in sporting events).

This guy is gay. He's always going to be attracted to men whether or not he deletes his Grindr profile.

[Lovecox]

Haha!

On a serious note, this type of stuff is precisely why I don't believe in God and think religion stinks. This guy went from living one lie (hiding the fact he was gay initially) to another (pretending he had somehow magically become straight) all in the name of a mystical beard spirit who lives in the sky and grants miracles when he so chooses (however he always seems to have a hand in sporting events).

This guy is gay. He's always going to be attracted to men whether or not he deletes his Grindr profile.

I agree with you. I also think he has found his "temptation-sin-remorse-forgiveness-redemption" cycle which he will probably carry proudly as his cross.

[Chase_Mcthirsty]

LOL at these comments..

Oh there's a GOD just don't confuse him with religion.

Religion are just the idiots who claim they know him.

PRO's: It keeps the weak in line and makes those who would otherwise be a walking psycho, whore or suicidal wreck into more managable people.

CON's: It keeps the weak in line by praising said diety while closing their minds to everything else despite the various contradictions envovled.

Thus making church nothing more than a conventional gathering and a tool for manipulation.

If there is a GOD I'm quite certain he, she or "it" has other plans...

[RallyCola]

LOL at these comments..

Oh there's a GOD just don't confuse him with religion.

Religion are just the idiots who claim they know him.

PRO's: It keeps the weak in line and makes those who would otherwise be a walking psycho, whore or suicidal wreck into more managable people.

CON's: It keeps the weak in line by praising said diety while closing their minds to everything else despite the various contradictions envovled.

Thus making church nothing more than a conventional gathering and a tool for manipulation.

If there is a GOD I'm quite certain he, she or "it" has other plans...

lol. so weak minded. any belief in a higher unexplained deity with a plan demonstrates an inferior intellect. that is all.

i am sure i'll get flamed for this comment but i don't care.

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/5/57606/1635898-flame_on_super.jpg

[StinkyPete1000]

I don't think that people who believe in God are necessarily less intelligent (there are many people who I think are extremely smart but we disagree on the existence of God).

I'm not sure that there are any "pros" to believing in God. It doesn't necessarily keep the "walking psychos" in check. Believers commit crimes all the time (there are prison chaplains for goodness sake). The idea that belief in God somehow prevents violence/sin has been proven false time and time again. Indeed, the idea that we get our morals from God/religion is equally false. For those of you familiar with the Bible, that book is replete with actions (i.e. eye for an eye, keeping women silent in church, sleeping with your father) that we would consider morally reprehensible today but they go unpunished (and in some cases are encouraged) in the Bible. Also, I love it when people point out that a lot of that ridiculousness is in the Old Testament, as if that makes a difference. Making that distinction only prompts questions about God's infallibility since it implies that he got it wrong the first time or simply changed his mind when he wrote the New Testament. Neither would be an option for a being that supposedly knows everything.

But I digress. The true problem with belief in God/all religions is that they are (1) wholly illogical and (2) are an impediment to true social and intellectual development (i.e. why try to cure the world's most heinous diseases when you think they are divine punishment, why try to prevent global warming when you believe that we must use all of the resources God provided no matter the costs). It's simply a man-made comfort-zone passed down to each generation. No need to face the hard questions in life when you can take the easy way out and say it's all part of "God's plan."

[iagodelgado]

There are pros to believing in God. These have been well-documented in science.

Belief is not = to proof.

You can't prove or disprove God. You either believe or you don't.

[bluesoul]

I don't think that people who believe in God are necessarily less intelligent (there are many people who I think are extremely smart but we disagree on the existence of God).


i like and heartily endorse this comment and/or product

http://www.freestockphotos.biz/pictures/13/13211/thumbs+up.jpg

[RallyCola]

There are pros to believing in God. These have been well-documented in science.

Belief is not = to proof.

You can't prove or disprove God. You either believe or you don't.

classic misdirection. you believe something because you find credibility in the evidence/story. you accept something as true (the definition of believe) because you have reason to. those reasons for acceptance are your proof.

the argument for "belief" not requiring proof is, and always will be retarded because you can't believe something without assigning your evidence a modicum of truth.

Q: Does Kate Beckinsale have a vagina?
A: Yes.
Proof: I can see it if I really wanted to.

Q: Does god exist?
A1: Yes, says the weak minded person.
Proof: he/it comforts me when i'm sad/diseased/etc OR there are unexplained things in the human world that we can't control therefore something supreme is afoot.
A2: An intelligent, level headed person devoid of the human construct of god would say no
Proof: common sense AND our understanding of our physical world that includes the fact that what separates us from dogs and kangaroos is our language and culture. god is an invention of language and culture.

both are proofs...reasoning behind a thought process...it just depends on which proof you believe.

[StinkyPete1000]

There are pros to believing in God. These have been well-documented in science.

Belief is not = to proof.

You can't prove or disprove God. You either believe or you don't.
I just wish you would have listed one of those "well-documented" pros. And don't get me wrong, I'm certain there are tons of people who feel genuinely fulfilled believing in a higher power. I'd guess there are people who are happy believing in God.

However, the reason why I don't believe that is a pro is simple: as a logical thinking being, I don't ever think it's positive to believe in (and act according to) something for which the evidence is circumstantial at best. We are thinkers and anything that prohibits thought is a con in my book.

[RallyCola]

I just wish you would have listed one of those "well-documented" pros. And don't get me wrong, I'm certain there are tons of people who feel genuinely fulfilled believing in a higher power. I'd guess there are people who are happy believing in God.

However, the reason why I don't believe that is a pro is simple: as a logical thinking being, I don't ever think it's positive to believe in (and act according to) something for which the evidence is circumstantial at best. We are thinkers and anything that prohibits thought is a con in my book.

exactly...if you are happy with your belief, that's fine. other people just don't need god to be happy.

that said however, just as most people want to have their belief in a god be accepted, i would like my beliefs accepted as well.

[StinkyPete1000]

I agree. I think my point is a little broader than that however. There are people that are happy believing in God but no one NEEDS to believe in God in order to be happy. It's just that some people are happy/comfortable believing there is a spirit up above taking care of everything.

In my opinion, it almost seems as though we, as humans, never truly grow up. We have this instinctive need to hope that there is something else taking care of us even after we reach adulthood. It feels good but the costs of such beliefs is great.

[iagodelgado]

I have spent a considerable part of today looking up the story of Lisa Lawer ... who believes that Christianity cured her (him?) of her (his?) homosexuality.

I happen to be an atheist. That is, I don't believe in God.

I happen to be an agnostic. That is, I don't reckon God can be proved or disproved. Because it's about belief versus proof.

Lisa is very happy with 'his' belief' in God.

And I am a scientist. I know that someone who believes will (on average) live longer, be happier, resist the negatives better.

This does not alter my beliefs. I do not believe in God. But I recognise as a scientist that my life would be better if I did.

[martin48]

Actually Christianity (in reality, Christians) cured me of any religious tendencies

[RallyCola]

Actually Christianity (in reality, Christians) cured me of any religious tendencies

best post in this thread!

[luvs2lick1385]

What ever floats your boat, but DO NOT try to convert me away from what I believe. More people have been killed because "My god can beat up your god". Why is it, the more devotly religious you are, he more of a WACKO you are.

[RallyCola]

What ever floats your boat, but DO NOT try to convert me away from what I believe. More people have been killed because "My god can beat up your god". Why is it, the more devotly religious you are, he more of a WACKO you are.


2nd best post of this thread!

[yodajazz]

Belief in God, is about our relationship with the universe, each other (mankind), and ourselves to the stream of life. It is basically a tool, for any to use. Some people misuse tools, based upon their limited knowledge. But for those that use it 'better', there are many rewards. This includes greater respect for one another, as an equal creation, and acceptance of ourselves as unique, and able to contribute to the value of a greater humanity. This is not exclusive to religion. However, many religions have had thousands of years, with people practicing and achieving a greater states of happiness. They also tell stories from ages ago, which demonstrate, that human behavior has not necessarily changed that much. For example, the Bible contains many stories about the types of "haters", that many people on YouTube complain about, today. When you can see your life, in a larger perspective going back thousands of years, today's headaches are more easily transcended. That is part of the Peace that religions often attempt to give their followers. I seem to have more of it, than many others around me. We are all blessed, to experience life. Many don't appreciate this as much as they could. I say, that if a person claims to be religious and does not have peace, they are missing some very important lessons in their teachings. And that's not the fault of the religion itself.

[martin48]

Belief in God, is about our relationship with the universe, each other (mankind), and ourselves to the stream of life. It is basically a tool, for any to use. Some people misuse tools, based upon their limited knowledge. But for those that use it 'better', there are many rewards. This includes greater respect for one another, as an equal creation, and acceptance of ourselves as unique, and able to contribute to the value of a greater humanity. This is not exclusive to religion. However, many religions have had thousands of years, with people practicing and achieving a greater states of happiness. They also tell stories from ages ago, which demonstrate, that human behavior has not necessarily changed that much. For example, the Bible contains many stories about the types of "haters", that many people on YouTube complain about, today. When you can see your life, in a larger perspective going back thousands of years, today's headaches are more easily transcended. That is part of the Peace that religions often attempt to give their followers. I seem to have more of it, than many others around me. We are all blessed, to experience life. Many don't appreciate this as much as they could. I say, that if a person claims to be religious and does not have peace, they are missing some very important lessons in their teachings. And that's not the fault of the religion itself.


Greater respect for each others!! Sure!!

[talldudeil]

If you need to rely on a "higher being" to feel better about yourself or to feel that you are better than someone else, that is just pitiful. If there is someone or something out there why in the hell would they be interested in the tiny planet of ours in all of the universes in the infinity of space.

Get real people, feel good about yourself for you and do not think you are better than anyone else. All humans on the planet are the same, some more intelligent, some better looking, some taller, some with medical or mental problems.

All religion does is cause wars, get rid of religions in peoples mind and there is no reason for all the wars we have and we could then "just all get along".

[bluesoul]

Belief in God, is about our relationship with the universe, each other (mankind), and ourselves to the stream of life. It is basically a tool, for any to use. Some people misuse tools, based upon their limited knowledge. But for those that use it 'better', there are many rewards. This includes greater respect for one another, as an equal creation, and acceptance of ourselves as unique, and able to contribute to the value of a greater humanity. This is not exclusive to religion. However, many religions have had thousands of years, with people practicing and achieving a greater states of happiness. They also tell stories from ages ago, which demonstrate, that human behavior has not necessarily changed that much. For example, the Bible contains many stories about the types of "haters", that many people on YouTube complain about, today. When you can see your life, in a larger perspective going back thousands of years, today's headaches are more easily transcended. That is part of the Peace that religions often attempt to give their followers. I seem to have more of it, than many others around me. We are all blessed, to experience life. Many don't appreciate this as much as they could. I say, that if a person claims to be religious and does not have peace, they are missing some very important lessons in their teachings. And that's not the fault of the religion itself.

posts like this are extremely rare here. thanks

[yodajazz]

Greater respect for each others!! Sure!!

I was re-reading a book from college about Islam. The author pointed out in respect to Iraq, that the people there were fighting and feuding with each other before Islam came to the area. They appeared to be united under the direction of the Prophet, but began to feud again over the successor to him, when he passed. Now that was the in the seventh century, and they are still feuding. It's not because of the religion. It's in spite of their religion. War is about control of land, people and other resources. 60 million people died in WWII. That was not about any religion. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is not about religion, its about control of the land.


posts like this are extremely rare here. thanks

Thanks!

[iagodelgado]

^^^^ Yup. There will always be haters, whether religious or non-religious. There will always be people whose beliefs are "superior" to my beliefs, and who feel the need to ram this down my throat.

Fortunately, there are also those who don't feel the need to ram their "superior beliefs" down anyone else's throat.

[StinkyPete1000]

I don't think my beliefs are superior to anyone else's beliefs. Like I said, I don't think people who believe in God are less intelligent than those who do not. I'll even concede that studies have shown that believers often lead happier lives (although studies indicate that it's not the belief in God that causes them to be happier but the social aspects of belonging to a religion and being surrounded by like-minded individuals).

To me--happy or not--it's strange to put so much faith into something that has not been proven to exist. As thinking beings I find it hard to believe in something for which there is no proof other than circumstantial evidence (and people calling stuff miracles). Think about it, if I began to proclaim that I was a messenger of God who could perform miracles and that everyone needed to follow me to obtain salvation, many of you would be skeptical and others would demand proof (and rightly so). Why is it that we show skepticism with respect to certain things but not the existence of God?

If I was a deity, especially one who held the key to human salvation, why not prove my existence? Why not let people know that I exist. For starters, people now have evidence. In addition, now I know who really deserves salvation because those that continue to sin--even after I reveal myself--don't deserve to be saved. Of course there are those that claim this is all one big "test." But what's the point of the test?

Here's an example: for those of you with kids (or who pan on having them), if a man came to your house and in his suitcase was something that would guarantee that your children would grow up to be kind, respectful and successful individuals, would you buy it? Now let's assume that this man is telling the truth and the object actually would make your children better people. I'd venture to guess that many would make the purchase in a heartbeat (including me). The point is, the goal is what's important. Not how you got there. You don't need to go through struggle to achieve all goals and there is no inherent value in struggle itself. Thus, if you could snap your fingers and make your kids great you should.

If you can snap your fingers and make the world a better place, why not? If you can reveal yourself and make everyone a believer, why not? If you can cure illness, why not? If you can work miracles, why? If you are all that is good, why not do it? Of course, these are logical questions and my problem with faith is that it often requires one to leave logic behind.

[RallyCola]

if there is a god, why does he give aids to babies in africa and give penises to women that don't want them. i'm just saying...

[LibertyHarkness]

for kicks basically ..

myself i follow the imperial truth .. science and logic ... remove superstions,religions etc , replace it with logic, science, understanding and you will get all of humanity singing off the same song sheet and we will be harmonious as a species and achieve wondrous things ....


if only carlsberg ruled the earth eh :)

[iagodelgado]

for kicks basically ..

myself i follow the imperial truth .. science and logic ... remove superstions,religions etc , replace it with logic, science, understanding and you will get all of humanity singing off the same song sheet and we will be harmonious as a species and achieve wondrous things ....


if only carlsberg ruled the earth eh :)

This led me to check which wars are considered to be religious wars. According to the Encyclopedia of War it is a mere 7%

[RallyCola]

This led me to check which wars are considered to be religious wars. According to the Encyclopedia of War it is a mere 7%


that's 8% too much. if you believe in divinity, you should understand that war and murder in the name of a god is wrong. you should be confident in yourself and your faith to know that you are right and everyone else is damned so there is no need to fight over it.

also, that 7% figure is alarmingly low because there are always theo-political undertones to many more wars than may be recognized by that particular source.

[iagodelgado]

that's 8% too much. if you believe in divinity, you should understand that war and murder in the name of a god is wrong. you should be confident in yourself and your faith to know that you are right and everyone else is damned so there is no need to fight over it.

also, that 7% figure is alarmingly low because there are always theo-political undertones to many more wars than may be recognized by that particular source.

Undertones - yes. Main reason - no.

How many wars has the US fought? How many were religious?

(PS Multiple sources come to the same conclusion.)

[StinkyPete1000]

Who cares how many wars were the product of religious belief?

How many people have been killed in the name of religion (war or not)?
How many people have been harmed in the name of religion?
How many people have been ridiculed in the name of religion?
How many people have been abandoned because of religion?

The point is, the 7% number is meaningless. Belief in God (and the ridiculous rules that come along with it) has harmed many (war or no war).

The worst of the harm is inflicted on people's intellect. Should you be proud that you're happy believing in a being who's existence has not been proven? Should you be proud that you're happy believing in a being that requires you to shun logic?

[iagodelgado]

There's an awful lot of intellectuals who are believers.

There's an awful lot of people who have been killed for nothing to do with religion. WW1, WW2, ....

Logic v belief. Different things.

[StinkyPete1000]

There are a lot of intellectuals who are believers. I know. However their relief requires them to shun logic (which is the opposite of being an intellectual).

That's the point I'm making. Being a logical human being but still believing in God seems somewhat hypocritical. As an intellectual, one seeks truth, but truth through evidence, truth through facts, research, logic, science even philosophy. Yet, when it comes to the belief in a higher power some set logic aside and rely on faith. That is what I did strange.

Pointing out that people have been killed for non-religious reasons has absolutely no bearing on my point. Just like pointing out that people get killed by knives has no bearing on the argument that guns are harmful). Sure people get killed for non-religious reasons but that doesn't mean that they DON'T get killed for religious reasons also.

Belief and logic are NOT mutually exclusive. I believe that the Earth orbits the Sun because years of scientific research tells me so. I believe that what goes up must come down because science tells me so. I BELIEVE a lot of things because they have supporting EVIDENCE. So, no, logic and belief are not completely different. I BELIEVE certain things BECAUSE they are logical. Some people, however, believe in God without the requisite proof/logic. That is what troubles me.

[yodajazz]

There are a lot of intellectuals who are believers. I know. However their relief requires them to shun logic (which is the opposite of being an intellectual).

That's the point I'm making. Being a logical human being but still believing in God seems somewhat hypocritical. As an intellectual, one seeks truth, but truth through evidence, truth through facts, research, logic, science even philosophy. Yet, when it comes to the belief in a higher power some set logic aside and rely on faith. That is what I did strange.

Pointing out that people have been killed for non-religious reasons has absolutely no bearing on my point. Just like pointing out that people get killed by knives has no bearing on the argument that guns are harmful). Sure people get killed for non-religious reasons but that doesn't mean that they DON'T get killed for religious reasons also.

Belief and logic are NOT mutually exclusive. I believe that the Earth orbits the Sun because years of scientific research tells me so. I believe that what goes up must come down because science tells me so. I BELIEVE a lot of things because they have supporting EVIDENCE. So, no, logic and belief are not completely different. I BELIEVE certain things BECAUSE they are logical. Some people, however, believe in God without the requisite proof/logic. That is what troubles me.
The problem I see with people that claim not to believe in God, is that their (and your) concept of God is too limited. God is a philosophical concept that has countless definitions, among numerous cultures. Let's look at one example: One statement in the Bible says that, "God is Truth". Maybe you cant conceive of a 'god', but you claim to believe Truth. I believe in God, ok. But for the sake of argument, let's say I believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Does that mean, God is not truth, or is really that I don't understand what truth is, related to the earth's creation? Some define God as infinite knowledge, the common consensus is that 'God' has a knowledge beyond man's knowledge. You can't deny that there is knowledge beyond man's current understanding. And speaking of understanding, perhaps both you and I don't fully understand what is considered to be "the word of God". Let's stick to the topic of the earth's creation. The Bible claims the earth was created in "six days". But who are we to know that it was six earth days? There was not even an earth on the first day, according to the Biblical version of creation. And God is defined as creating stars, etc. So who are we to say God's 'day' is the same as an earth day, since we know that earth is only a small part of the universe? Anyway, many parts of the Bible can be taken as allegory. Scientific theories believe that the earth was formed, from part of the sun, and that there were different periods, same as what the Bible story claims. (days in the Bible, could equal what science refers to as 'ages'). Theories say that man was a more recent 'creation' than other species. That aligns with the Biblical order of creation also.

Lastly, I will say at the very least, God is a personification of Law. What you most likely don't believe, is the 'personification' part. But you have already admitted to believe in Law, as defined by scientific proof. So you too believe in Law(s), and many (most) philosophical concepts that others define as God. What about love, or I should say, Love?

[iagodelgado]

Many years ago I attended a marriage. The after-ceremony meal was interesting. As the husband of the wife who was the mother of the groom (he's not mine - previous marriage) I got seated on the top table along with the Roman Catholic priest who performed the ceremony. Basically it was family, plus me (outsider) plus priest (outsider).

So for about 2 hours, it was me (atheist) with Roman Catholic priest. It was quite enjoyable. He didn't push any religious propaganda. I didn't push science, logic or atheism. I learned a lot about the history of the church that afternoon, but that was how it was laid out - merely history - no need to dismantle another person's view.

Just as well, considering, 'cos I support Arsenal. I'm going to guess that you don't, like most people. This difference does not make me illogical.

[surf4490]

No being a Gooner is not illogical ,just a bit stupid :tongue:

[Prospero]

Are we talking about the Pope?

[RallyCola]

Are we talking about the Pope?

the pope was simply just let down my his god. he resigned because his god saw fit to take from him health and vitality even though the pope is the closest person to god in the catholic faith.

that the pope lost the desire to serve his master till his death really should make catholics wonder and rethink their choices.

anyway, he was a shitty pope. he certainly was no PJP. i liked that little polack

[StinkyPete1000]

Many years ago I attended a marriage. The after-ceremony meal was interesting. As the husband of the wife who was the mother of the groom (he's not mine - previous marriage) I got seated on the top table along with the Roman Catholic priest who performed the ceremony. Basically it was family, plus me (outsider) plus priest (outsider).

So for about 2 hours, it was me (atheist) with Roman Catholic priest. It was quite enjoyable. He didn't push any religious propaganda. I didn't push science, logic or atheism. I learned a lot about the history of the church that afternoon, but that was how it was laid out - merely history - no need to dismantle another person's view.

Just as well, considering, 'cos I support Arsenal. I'm going to guess that you don't, like most people. This difference does not make me illogical.
A difference in opinion doesn't make you illogical. What makes some one illogical is when said opinion is illogical. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

[StinkyPete1000]

The problem I see with people that claim not to believe in God, is that their (and your) concept of God is too limited. God is a philosophical concept that has countless definitions, among numerous cultures. Let's look at one example: One statement in the Bible says that, "God is Truth". Maybe you cant conceive of a 'god', but you claim to believe Truth. I believe in God, ok. But for the sake of argument, let's say I believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Does that mean, God is not truth, or is really that I don't understand what truth is, related to the earth's creation? Some define God as infinite knowledge, the common consensus is that 'God' has a knowledge beyond man's knowledge. You can't deny that there is knowledge beyond man's current understanding. And speaking of understanding, perhaps both you and I don't fully understand what is considered to be "the word of God". Let's stick to the topic of the earth's creation. The Bible claims the earth was created in "six days". But who are we to know that it was six earth days? There was not even an earth on the first day, according to the Biblical version of creation. And God is defined as creating stars, etc. So who are we to say God's 'day' is the same as an earth day, since we know that earth is only a small part of the universe? Anyway, many parts of the Bible can be taken as allegory. Scientific theories believe that the earth was formed, from part of the sun, and that there were different periods, same as what the Bible story claims. (days in the Bible, could equal what science refers to as 'ages'). Theories say that man was a more recent 'creation' than other species. That aligns with the Biblical order of creation also.

Lastly, I will say at the very least, God is a personification of Law. What you most likely don't believe, is the 'personification' part. But you have already admitted to believe in Law, as defined by scientific proof. So you too believe in Law(s), and many (most) philosophical concepts that others define as God. What about love, or I should say, Love?
This entire post seems somewhat nonsensical.

First, the post appears to be an attempt to broaden the definition of God to such an extent that literally anything can be considered God. I believe in karate, could there be a karate god? The more you need to broaden the definition the more apparent it is that it's becoming increasingly harder to justify the belief as we get smarter. To use your example, some people say God is truth. What, exactly, does that even mean? I doubt even you can explain that concept. It reminds me of the scene in Anchorman when Brick says he loves lamp and then proceeds to say he loves various objects in the room. He has a rudimentary understanding of the word love so he just says he loves whatever he sees. In your case, people "understand" that their understanding of God as a spirit is harder to justify, so instead you hear pseudo-philosophical lines like "god is love" and "god is truth."

I'm also not sure how the fact that there is myriad information that remains undiscovered by humanity has anything to do with the existence of god. It's been my experience that, the more we learn, the less important god becomes (once we discovered germs we no longer believed that god made bad people sick).

The rest of your post presupposes the existence of god, which is the very thing being argued in this thread. Who's to say how long "god's day" is? That question, while unrelated to the topic, presupposes gods existence. If his existence remains unproven I have no need (or desire) to waste time trying to determine the length of one of his days. Furthermore, you concede that much of the bible is allegory, so why give it any credence at all? Call me crazy but I find it quite hard to believe that the creation story is an allegory for the Big Bang.

[iagodelgado]

No being a Gooner is not illogical ,just a bit stupid :tongue:

True. :)

[iagodelgado]

This entire post seems somewhat nonsensical.

First, the post appears to be an attempt to broaden the definition of God to such an extent that literally anything can be considered God. I believe in karate, could there be a karate god? The more you need to broaden the definition the more apparent it is that it's becoming increasingly harder to justify the belief as we get smarter. To use your example, some people say God is truth. What, exactly, does that even mean? I doubt even you can explain that concept. It reminds me of the scene in Anchorman when Brick says he loves lamp and then proceeds to say he loves various objects in the room. He has a rudimentary understanding of the word love so he just says he loves whatever he sees. In your case, people "understand" that their understanding of God as a spirit is harder to justify, so instead you hear pseudo-philosophical lines like "god is love" and "god is truth."

I'm also not sure how the fact that there is myriad information that remains undiscovered by humanity has anything to do with the existence of god. It's been my experience that, the more we learn, the less important god becomes (once we discovered germs we no longer believed that god made bad people sick).

The rest of your post presupposes the existence of god, which is the very thing being argued in this thread. Who's to say how long "god's day" is? That question, while unrelated to the topic, presupposes gods existence. If his existence remains unproven I have no need (or desire) to waste time trying to determine the length of one of his days. Furthermore, you concede that much of the bible is allegory, so why give it any credence at all? Call me crazy but I find it quite hard to believe that the creation story is an allegory for the Big Bang.

The logic side of me gets Yoda's post easily and in its entirety.

I don't believe in God. I can't prove by logic that God (whether Yoda's or otherwise) exists or does not exist.

I can only believe. Or not.

[StinkyPete1000]

The logic side of me gets Yoda's post easily and in its entirety.

I don't believe in God. I can't prove by logic that God (whether Yoda's or otherwise) exists or does not exist.

I can only believe. Or not.
Why don't you explain it then? His point was that my definition of god was limited. So, what version of god do you not believe in? You say you don't believe in god (and apparently the logic side of you got yoda's point) so my question for you is which god dont you believe in? The god that is truth, knowledge, love? All of the above?

I agree you can believe or not. That was never in dispute. You can believe what you want. Just like I believe the issue was whether or not said belief was based on logic. My position is that it is not. The logic side of me says that if you broaden the definition of god then god can literally be anything. He or she can be truth, knowledge, love, justice--whatever you want. Unfortunately, that answer does not speak to the question of whether the belief is logical.

So again, perhaps I missed something in Yoda's post. That's why I'm asking you to fill me in since you got it easily (although you failed to explain what you understood). Enlighten me.

[iagodelgado]

Yoda believes in his beliefs.

I believe in science. That's logic and rationale.

Holy shit, that's big bang, which works ..... er, um, er.

That's superstring theory. With 9 parallel universes. Oh shit, is it 12?

That's Higgs-Boson. Assuming we ever find the bastard.

And a mere 100 years from now my scientific theories are going to look as childish as the Book of Genesis.

I still don't believe. Yoda does, so RESPECT.

PS I still support Arsenal.

[RallyCola]

if i had a choice to shut off the rational, logical and level headed part of my personality, i'd believe in yoda more than a god. yoda rulez

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Yoda_60a779_165483.jpg

[StinkyPete1000]

Yoda believes in his beliefs.

I believe in science. That's logic and rationale.

Holy shit, that's big bang, which works ..... er, um, er.

That's superstring theory. With 9 parallel universes. Oh shit, is it 12?

That's Higgs-Boson. Assuming we ever find the bastard.

And a mere 100 years from now my scientific theories are going to look as childish as the Book of Genesis.

I still don't believe. Yoda does, so RESPECT.

PS I still support Arsenal.
I didn't think I disrespected Yoda. And if I did I'd hope he'd tell me himself. I didn't take a swipe at believers (for example, I don't question their intelligence). Last time I checked this was a couple adults having a discussion (an interesting one I might add).

Other than that, I'm not sure "Holy shit, that's big bang, which works ..... er, um, er" brings anything to the table. But I did like your statement that 100 years from now "your" scientific theories will seem childish. As we advance, what were once widely held theories (in the scientific sense of the word) seem outdated. That's a great point and I think it's entirely applicable to this discussion because that is what's happening to belief in God to a certain extent. Holes in our existence that were once filled by God have now been filled by science. Dare I say that at some point in the future there may be no more room for God.

Either way, I respect Yoda's beliefs (I respect Yoda). But we are having a conversation and I merely pointed out the portions of his statement that I found troubling. If my conclusions are incorrect I invite either one of you to point me in the right direction. But, I have to apologize--"
That's superstring theory. With 9 parallel universes. Oh shit, is it 12?" isn't going to cut it for me...

[yodajazz]

I didn't think I disrespected Yoda. And if I did I'd hope he'd tell me himself. I didn't take a swipe at believers (for example, I don't question their intelligence). Last time I checked this was a couple adults having a discussion (an interesting one I might add).

Other than that, I'm not sure "Holy shit, that's big bang, which works ..... er, um, er" brings anything to the table. But I did like your statement that 100 years from now "your" scientific theories will seem childish. As we advance, what were once widely held theories (in the scientific sense of the word) seem outdated. That's a great point and I think it's entirely applicable to this discussion because that is what's happening to belief in God to a certain extent. Holes in our existence that were once filled by God have now been filled by science. Dare I say that at some point in the future there may be no more room for God.

Either way, I respect Yoda's beliefs (I respect Yoda). But we are having a conversation and I merely pointed out the portions of his statement that I found troubling. If my conclusions are incorrect I invite either one of you to point me in the right direction. But, I have to apologize--"
That's superstring theory. With 9 parallel universes. Oh shit, is it 12?" isn't going to cut it for me...
SP1000, I don't feel you have disrespected me at all. You are simply stating your truth, (or is it Truth?) My major point is, that you have to look at something according to it's definition, not just what you see, or what you define it as. I want to use your example of Karate. The majority might see it as what Bruce Lee used in his movies, a fighting technique. But a Karate Master, would see fighting techniques as just part of a larger discipline. This larger discipline, would include relaxation, breathing techniques, and posture in daily activities, both to conserve energy, and to keep ones body in a higher state of readiness. Also important in Karate, would be a mental state, which would include knowledge of when certain force is necessary. So a Karate Master might define all movement, and mental states as Karate. A master watching television, could also be practicing posture and breathing as well. I admit, I personally dont have a master knowledge of Karate, by I can now intuitively understand, based upon my experience in other disciplines, including Judo, and Tai Chi. I would say that Karate is not God, but a discipline system, which brings one closer to God. That is by giving one a 'higher state of being', than you would have without it. That higher state could include, better health, confidence, and even general happiness, as well as many other benefits. In the Bible they have been called "fruits of the spirit". But one could possibly be a world champion Karate fighter, and not have the 'fruits'. Chuck Norris doesn't have it, in my humble opinion.

I must make an aside, and say that many, maybe even the majority people that believe in the Bible, think that one can only get those 'fruits' by following Jesus, and the Bible in general. Then some of them turn around and have attitudes of condemnation towards others, that say they don't believe. They are missing essential parts of the teachings of Jesus. To people like yourself, their behavior seems illogical. The truth is that it is, in their case. They are missing a greater Truth. I think it was Jesus, that said, 'you can judge a tree by it's fruits. Religion is more analogous to the roots, rather than the fruits.

Truth is the ultimate reality of what is, in the universe, all the way down to what is reality in our everyday existence. But keep in mind that reality goes a lot deeper than everyday observations. Science and logic are tools to find a greater truths. Science then should bring us closer, to whatever God is. A person who believes that the earth is 6000 years old is missing the essence of what is God. I think I know what truth is. But that does not mean, I necessarily know Truth better than you. I might get to the Truth, after a long journey, and find StinkyPete already there, sipping on a pina colada! Perhaps you might discover a more efficient way to get coconut milk. Thus I should always try and be respectful. Thanks for this discussion. I did not have the time to get to some of your other points. Perhaps later I will.

[Molly D'Vyne]

That's Higgs-Boson. Assuming we ever find the bastard.


Assuming they ever just accept that we've found the bastard. Five sigma is pretty damn significant... assuming some asshat didn't leave a cable partially plugged into a sensor somewhere, you'd really think we have solid evidence that it exists now.

[iagodelgado]

I think we got unplugged a while a go. Reality dissolved. Sorry!

[fivekatz]

Nothing wrong with the ideas and intent behind religion, only how people manipulate it.

Nothing wrong with the ideas and intent behind government, only how people manipulate it.

Trends of thought and belief in and of themselves are healthy, it is how some people manipulate and attempt to force those beliefs and ideals on others to gain whatever sort of power they maybe looking for it, be it monetary, emotional or spiritual.

Nothing personal to the what I am sure are the many Christians here but many of the most un-Christ like acts in history of humanity have been done in name of Christ.

I don't know if there is a God but if there is she/he loves all her children regardless of their sexual orientation and in fact there is judgment it would be on charity of heart not judgment of the differences between humans.

Maybe this poor soul who was cured of his homosexuality by Christianity can have his humanity restored by Christ?

[scroller]

Nothing wrong with the ideas and intent behind religion, only how people manipulate it.

Aside from it being false, ridiculous, mean-spirited, and supportive of living life in a delusional state.

[StinkyPete1000]

SP1000, I don't feel you have disrespected me at all. You are simply stating your truth, (or is it Truth?) My major point is, that you have to look at something according to it's definition, not just what you see, or what you define it as. I want to use your example of Karate. The majority might see it as what Bruce Lee used in his movies, a fighting technique. But a Karate Master, would see fighting techniques as just part of a larger discipline. This larger discipline, would include relaxation, breathing techniques, and posture in daily activities, both to conserve energy, and to keep ones body in a higher state of readiness. Also important in Karate, would be a mental state, which would include knowledge of when certain force is necessary. So a Karate Master might define all movement, and mental states as Karate. A master watching television, could also be practicing posture and breathing as well. I admit, I personally dont have a master knowledge of Karate, by I can now intuitively understand, based upon my experience in other disciplines, including Judo, and Tai Chi. I would say that Karate is not God, but a discipline system, which brings one closer to God. That is by giving one a 'higher state of being', than you would have without it. That higher state could include, better health, confidence, and even general happiness, as well as many other benefits. In the Bible they have been called "fruits of the spirit". But one could possibly be a world champion Karate fighter, and not have the 'fruits'. Chuck Norris doesn't have it, in my humble opinion.

I must make an aside, and say that many, maybe even the majority people that believe in the Bible, think that one can only get those 'fruits' by following Jesus, and the Bible in general. Then some of them turn around and have attitudes of condemnation towards others, that say they don't believe. They are missing essential parts of the teachings of Jesus. To people like yourself, their behavior seems illogical. The truth is that it is, in their case. They are missing a greater Truth. I think it was Jesus, that said, 'you can judge a tree by it's fruits. Religion is more analogous to the roots, rather than the fruits.

Truth is the ultimate reality of what is, in the universe, all the way down to what is reality in our everyday existence. But keep in mind that reality goes a lot deeper than everyday observations. Science and logic are tools to find a greater truths. Science then should bring us closer, to whatever God is. A person who believes that the earth is 6000 years old is missing the essence of what is God. I think I know what truth is. But that does not mean, I necessarily know Truth better than you. I might get to the Truth, after a long journey, and find StinkyPete already there, sipping on a pina colada! Perhaps you might discover a more efficient way to get coconut milk. Thus I should always try and be respectful. Thanks for this discussion. I did not have the time to get to some of your other points. Perhaps later I will.
Hey Yoda, glad I didn't offend. I appreciate this conversation a lot. You're a good guy in my book.

I just have a few thoughts. My karate example was not meant to show that people may define things differently. I understand that concept. My point was, when you start saying God is truth, knowledge, love, etc. the definition becomes so broad that God can literally be anything and everything. The result is that believers feel justified in arguing that God exists because they can place him anywhere and in anything. It's false logic in my opinion. Here's an example: God is truth, I believe in truth, therefore God must exist. There is no logical link between the two. That is simply not proof of God's existence.

Also, again, much of what you said presupposes the existence of God. Why try to find out how long one of his days is when we can't establish that he exists? How can you say that certain things will bring people closer to Jesus when his existence has also yet to be proven? You can believe that science will bring us closer to God, but, again, that assumes God exists. On a side note, science has brought us farther away from God in my opinion and I'm quite happy it has.

So I guess my overall response is that your "what is God" arguments are premature. Those are arguments that you can have once you've proven his existence. Until then, the question is does God exist at all and, based on the evidence ( or lack thereof), logic tells me he/she does not.

[yodajazz]

Hey Yoda, glad I didn't offend. I appreciate this conversation a lot. You're a good guy in my book.

I just have a few thoughts. My karate example was not meant to show that people may define things differently. I understand that concept. My point was, when you start saying God is truth, knowledge, love, etc. the definition becomes so broad that God can literally be anything and everything. The result is that believers feel justified in arguing that God exists because they can place him anywhere and in anything. It's false logic in my opinion. Here's an example: God is truth, I believe in truth, therefore God must exist. There is no logical link between the two. That is simply not proof of God's existence.

Also, again, much of what you said presupposes the existence of God. Why try to find out how long one of his days is when we can't establish that he exists? How can you say that certain things will bring people closer to Jesus when his existence has also yet to be proven? You can believe that science will bring us closer to God, but, again, that assumes God exists. On a side note, science has brought us farther away from God in my opinion and I'm quite happy it has.

So I guess my overall response is that your "what is God" arguments are premature. Those are arguments that you can have once you've proven his existence. Until then, the question is does God exist at all and, based on the evidence ( or lack thereof), logic tells me he/she does not.

According to my believe system, God is those major concept/principles, as well as more. Science has prove the existence of things we cannot see, or hear. Atomic and sub-atomic particles are examples of this. In many cases, their existence is proven by certain effects, not by direct observation. So this would be the case with God. And I argue that the effects are more important, than proving the existence of God. I have used as example, 'cosmic' events. But we haven't gotten to human events. Basic religions say , there are laws and consequences for human behavior beyond the directly observable ones. Heaven and hell are defined a places where people reside, as consequences for their behaviors. But those are theoretical places, as some believe and some don't. So it still goes back to how we each live our lives and the principles that guide us. Many believe, that you have to specifically believe certain things about Jesus, such as his resurrection from the dead, and that's all you need. But that's not what Jesus himself said, according to what I understand. He said we needed to do certain things. I would summarize them to say; 'giving towards life'. When we love, with give for the sake of giving, not for any expected direct reward. If we serve Truth, then we do it for the sake of achieving a greater truth, etc. Sometimes we do expect rewards, but the reward should not be the most important thing, or its not really giving.

The rules for living from God, according to religions, also include prohibiting certain negative behaviors towards others. So just for an exercise; lets say someone come to you with a guaranteed plan that you could, get say one million dollars from some account, with no violence. Perhaps just some direct account access stuff. Would you do it? Why or why not? This is not a set up, to attack you. It's just a discussion about values of living, many of which people believe are from 'God".

Lest you think that this is only about Christianity lets look for a second at Islam. In Islam there is a concept called the 99 names of God (who they call Allah). I most cases they translate into more than one word, but many could be converted to a saying, like "God is Peace". My personal history comes from being a member of a 'New Thought" sub-movement which tries to find common elements among different religions. "The Truth" is one of the 99 names.

[Chase_Mcthirsty]

This led me to check which wars are considered to be religious wars. According to the Encyclopedia of War it is a mere 7%

Funny thing is...the people who win those wars are the ones who write/edit the history books.

[Tayla]

Christian cured his homosexual tendencies... :)

[iagodelgado]

Funny thing is...the people who win those wars are the ones who write/edit the history books.

You've won most of the wars you have gone into.

You've written the most shit that has been written.

The people who get to write the shit are the people who get to write the shit.

Whether or nor not it cured his ...........

[gaysian71]

nothing cures homosexuality period

[fivekatz]

nothing cures homosexuality periodThe very idea that the Christian right in the US speaks of the idea of homosexuality being a curable condition says everything you need to know about these people, who would have rejected Jesus for being a Jew with long hair and beard who embraced a prostitute and spoke against the conventions of the day.

IMHO 21st Century US Christianity is curable by simply getting those people to follow the teachings of Christ rather than trying to revise them to fit twisted political agendas.