It's not just that I don't believe in God, I think you are LYING when you say you do [Archive] - Page 3

Belz...

19th February 2009, 04:24 AM

After receiving a warning for being such a mean SOB I am ceasing posting for now as I feel a double standard exists here between the atheists (favored) and the theists (the non favored).

Waahh!! Waaahhh!!!

Hey, I've been warned before because I was out of line. Did I whine ? Nope. I just opted to not repeat the mistake.

Then again, some theists can't help but emulate their master and play victim.

I did a quick Google search and it was very enlightening.

I also think Google is very enlightening, sometimes.

Anyway it was fun while it lasted. I am happy as hell I didn't donate!

Hell. Interesting choice of words. It's also interesting that the part you're happy about is NOT donating to an educational foundation that has nothing to do with the opinion of the posters, here.

But then people of your ilk are seldom discerning in the matter.

Lonewulf

19th February 2009, 04:34 AM

It's also interesting that the part you're happy about is NOT donating to an educational foundation that has nothing to do with the opinion of the posters, here.

But then people of your ilk are seldom discerning in the matter.

Remember, he called my (secular) education "brainwashing". Because secular education is brainwashing, religious education isn't. *nods*

truethat

22nd February 2009, 09:07 AM

Rev Disturbia, I don't believe you when you say that most Christians you know read the bible. Most Christians I know don't read the bible. They may have read some of it but they don't read it on a daily basis. You ask for statistics but common sense and observation are legitimate in a reasonable debate. Some of the people I know who homeschool their children will read it, however in general most self proclaimed Christians do not do this as a daily practice. You can argue until you are blue in the face and try to trump it with "AHA I KNEW THERE'D BE NO STATISTICS!!!" but no one is buying that baloney. Unless you live in a cave you encounter Christians and have observed their daily habits.

Next you say there are no contradictions in the bible and then try to pass yourself off as some sort of theological expert. Just the books written by Paul are the topic of much research because of the contradictions regarding circumcision and the Jews. So if you don't even know about that, then you reveal yourself (surprise surprise) as yet another Christian who defends the bible as an authoritative text without having actually read the bible.

I'm not talking about Sunday sermons, or perusing the book for meaningful passages about life. I'm talking about the historical interpretation and the issues regarding law. Any fledgling theology student knows about Paul and the contradictions.

Minarvia

22nd February 2009, 09:58 PM

You're too easily "enlightened": one of the prominent atheist on this board, Articulett, has been banned just the other day, while you're still free to post ...

Bye, bye, we won't miss your preaching, though.

Articulett has been banned??? :( I've always enjoyed her posts. Well, the ones I've read, anyway.

Belz...

23rd February 2009, 04:43 AM

Rev Disturbia, I don't believe you when you say that most Christians you know read the bible. Most Christians I know don't read the bible.

I think the good reverent meant that most Christian he knows are aware of the passages of the bible that are read at church. For him, it must constitude "reading" the bible.

Personally, I wouldn't let them read the bits where god asks the Hebrews to commit genocide and then offer some of the cattle and virgins to him in sacrifice.

Heaven knows what he does with the cattle.

westprog

23rd February 2009, 07:42 AM

You're too easily "enlightened": one of the prominent atheist on this board, Articulett, has been banned just the other day

How did that happen? What could she have said that she hasn't said already?

Flo

23rd February 2009, 07:58 AM

There's a thread about Articulett's banning in "management" ...

truethat

23rd February 2009, 09:24 AM

I think the good reverent meant that most Christian he knows are aware of the passages of the bible that are read at church. For him, it must constitude "reading" the bible.

Personally, I wouldn't let them read the bits where god asks the Hebrews to commit genocide and then offer some of the cattle and virgins to him in sacrifice.

Heaven knows what he does with the cattle.

I think a lot of Christians think that constitutes reading the bible.

RobRoy

23rd February 2009, 09:52 AM

I think a lot of Christians think that constitutes reading the bible.

What's the difference between reading the Bible and having it read to you in regards to retention and understanding?

truethat

23rd February 2009, 09:56 AM

What's the difference between reading the Bible and having it read to you in regards to retention and understanding?

Why don't you think about that for a second......The fact that you don't understand that explains a lot.

RobRoy

23rd February 2009, 10:55 AM

Why don't you think about that for a second......The fact that you don't understand that explains a lot.

<sigh>I was asking for your opinion in reference to your comments. I was hoping you'd be able to provide some insight into why, seemingly, you have a negative interpretation of having the Bible read outloud as a means of study.

I understand the matter quite clearly, but I'm willing to concede that my understanding may not be up to date, and was hoping, once again, that you would provide actual evidence to support your sentiments.

Lonewulf

23rd February 2009, 11:37 AM

What's the difference between reading the Bible and having it read to you in regards to retention and understanding?

Because, more often than not, the passages are "selected passages", not a full beginning-to-end reading.

I heard a preacher over my radio just the other day. It was not an unbiased reading. He was not just "reading out loud"; he was TELLING the listener what to think, SAYING what Jesus meant. For instance, the "meek" means the "spirit", because poor people can be as hard and nasty as the rich. And of course, you cannot have forgiveness without condemnation, and God condemns so and so for such and such.

Even if the preacher gives none of his own opinions or his own translations of "what it means", the passages are usually picked and chosen, much like they were back in the day the Bible was original published.

RobRoy

23rd February 2009, 11:47 AM

Because, more often than not, the passages are "selected passages", not a full beginning-to-end reading.

I had not considered that this is what was meant, but rather thought we were discussing one style of learning (reading) over another style of learning (listening). You are correct that this is exactly what can occur as the homily or sermon follows the reading of the selected passage so that you get a "here's what the Bible says" followed immediately by a "here's what the Bible means".

Not necessarily a bad thing, as far as what your particular religious faith believes (because you get the call and response version). It does, though, easily lend itself to a tunnel-vision version of what the Bible says and what a particular faith interprets those passages to mean. Follow-up by individuals can then be reduced, as most people tend to put faith into those placed in positions of power and trust.

truethat

23rd February 2009, 12:04 PM

Because, more often than not, the passages are "selected passages", not a full beginning-to-end reading.

I heard a preacher over my radio just the other day. It was not an unbiased reading. He was not just "reading out loud"; he was TELLING the listener what to think, SAYING what Jesus meant. For instance, the "meek" means the "spirit", because poor people can be as hard and nasty as the rich. And of course, you cannot have forgiveness without condemnation, and God condemns so and so for such and such.

Even if the preacher gives none of his own opinions or his own translations of "what it means", the passages are usually picked and chosen, much like they were back in the day the Bible was original published.

^^^^^^Yeah that

Again this is evidence that people don't really believe God wrote the book but rather some "expert elders" put it together which really is the truth.

If I felt God wrote the book I'd want to read it first hand. You get more attention from rubberneckers looking at the scene of an accident than you do from Christians touting the holy book as the WORD.

skeptical

23rd February 2009, 01:33 PM

^^^^^^Yeah that

Again this is evidence that people don't really believe God wrote the book but rather some "expert elders" put it together which really is the truth.

If I felt God wrote the book I'd want to read it first hand. You get more attention from rubberneckers looking at the scene of an accident than you do from Christians touting the holy book as the WORD.

This is a really interesting thread, sorry I'm late to the party but haven't been regularly posting in a while.

I think the crux of the matter your discussing is correct, with a minor nuance. The point isn't that Christians will claim the Bible is the word of God or inspired by God or whatever and then not read it. As others have said they might just be lazy. I think the central point is that they go further than this and will make specific claims about reality based on specific passages, while simultaneously ignoring other almost identical passages, sometimes passages adjacent to the passage they quote.

The diatribe about homosexuals is a classic case. Some Christians will point to Leviticus stating that homosexuality is an abomination (actually it says man laying with man, so apparently Lesbians are ok), without realizing, because they don't actually read the Bible, that there are hundreds of other things in Leviticus that are also abominations like shellfish.

What I find is that many Christians use the Bible as simply cover for their biases and beliefs because that is perceived to be an authority. Especially with regard to homosexuality, they don't like gay people so they find an appropriate passage to justify their beliefs. As you say its not the hypocrisy, its the dishonesty, albeit I think to a certain extent it is self deception. For example, if someone tells me they don't like homosexuals because of Leviticus, I truly think they are lying to me or themselves or both.

I am fond of Mark Twain's quote: "a man never believes the Bible means what it says, he always believes it says what he means". I think that sums it up rather nicely.

truethat

23rd February 2009, 01:38 PM

Skeptical that is precisely why I started this thread!! Spot on! Glad to see that you get it. :j2:

skeptical

23rd February 2009, 01:38 PM

Even if the preacher gives none of his own opinions or his own translations of "what it means", the passages are usually picked and chosen, much like they were back in the day the Bible was original published.

What's even more annoying is that preachers tend to grab disparate passages from varying books written in different historical contexts and then weave them together sans context to create a message crafted to their own liking.

A good example this weaving is the traditional Christmas story. It picks parts of both Mat and Luke, ignores inconvenient contradictions, and then weaves it together to make the story consistent. I would bet that most Christians couldn't tell you a reasonable approximation of the story in Mat compared to the story in Luke, but they can give you a very good approximation of the amalgamated story they hear every December.

RobRoy

23rd February 2009, 01:52 PM

(actually it says man laying with man, so apparently Lesbians are ok). . .

Not only ok, but they should be celebrated. I certainly support them. And if two or three lesbians want to get together and share their love, and then film it for posterity, I would be remiss in not supporting them! :D

. . . without realizing, because they don't actually read the Bible, that there are hundreds of other things in Leviticus that are also abominations like shellfish.

Agreed, completely and utterly. I once put together a list of "shalt nots" from Leviticus, because it's quite the set of restrictions that are considered "toevah" or "to'ebah" for things like usury, women wearing men's clothes, and picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

What I find is that many Christians use the Bible as simply cover for their biases and beliefs because that is perceived to be an authority. Especially with regard to homosexuality, they don't like gay people so they find an appropriate passage to justify their beliefs. As you say its not the hypocrisy, its the dishonesty, albeit I think to a certain extent it is self deception. For example, if someone tells me they don't like homosexuals because of Leviticus, I truly think they are lying to me or themselves or both.

But see, I don't think they're actually lying. I think the majority of them actually believe what they say they believe, and for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to delve in deeper to see the truth. They are caught in social constraints by a certain viewing of what is and isn't taboo, and as you say, they "use the Bible as simply cover for their biases and beliefs".

When someone tells me they hate homosexuals or homosexual behavior, regardless of their support, I believe they are telling the truth. I also believe that their view is bigotted and mishappen by society. But I don't think they are lying about their belief.

I am fond of Mark Twain's quote: "a man never believes the Bible means what it says, he always believes it says what he means". I think that sums it up rather nicely.

With this I agree totally. After all, it's Twain! :cool:

ETA: A quotation mark that I left off.

skeptical

23rd February 2009, 03:00 PM

When someone tells me they hate homosexuals or homosexual behavior, regardless of their support, I believe they are telling the truth. I also believe that their view is bigotted and mishappen by society. But I don't think they are lying about their belief.

Ah, yes, I should clarify. I don't think they are lying about their beliefs, I think in fact they are quite honest. I do think they are deceiving (me or themselves) about the _reasons_ for those beliefs. If someone tells me that they don't like homosexuals because of Leviticus, but they don't follow any other injunctions that are right next to it in the same verses, then I can't take them seriously as to why they don't like homosexuals. I think they are simply using the Bible as a ventriloquist so to speak.

But yes, I do believe they are telling the truth that they really don't like homosexuals.

truethat

23rd February 2009, 04:03 PM

Exactly. Reread skeptical again Rob Roy and maybe you will get it.

The truth is that they don't like homosexuals. If someone outright tells me that they hate homosexuals I believe that they are telling me the truth.

If someone tells me that they don't dislike homosexuals it's just that God said it isn't a good thing, I think they are lying if they don't even know the rest of Leviticus which most Christians I have encountered do not. Neither do they know Peter, or Romans 13.

So it leaves you to wonder what exactly they believe.

Interesting because one of my good friends is an Orthodox Jew who keeps Kosher. And her opinion on homosexuality is that unless it involves one of her children then it is really none of her business. That relationship is between the Homosexual and God. Nothing to do with her.

Belz...

24th February 2009, 04:40 AM

What's the difference between reading the Bible and having it read to you in regards to retention and understanding?

As lonewulf said. You pretty much always hear the same passages in Church. They're never going to mention the bits I described above. They only go with the feel-good ones, and repeat them so that the faithful can learn them by heart and sing-along with the priest.

However, few Christians, in my experience, actually read the bible on their own and discover the rest of it. It's a big difference, then.

Of course, I'm not claiming they're not really Christians by failing to read it. I'm just pointing out that few of them do.

As a side note, I know of at least one person who says she believes the bible "litterally" but has never, ever read it. :boggled:

Belz...

24th February 2009, 04:44 AM

I think the central point is that they go further than this and will make specific claims about reality based on specific passages, while simultaneously ignoring other almost identical passages, sometimes passages adjacent to the passage they quote.

Which is classic human behaviour. They want to give themselves a veneer of morality, while doing whatever the hell they want to do. So many people "break" their own rules, only to justify it to themselves. It's all very convenient.

I am fond of Mark Twain's quote: "a man never believes the Bible means what it says, he always believes it says what he means". I think that sums it up rather nicely.

That guy rocks.

RobRoy

24th February 2009, 08:07 AM

Ah, yes, I should clarify. I don't think they are lying about their beliefs, I think in fact they are quite honest. I do think they are deceiving (me or themselves) about the _reasons_ for those beliefs. If someone tells me that they don't like homosexuals because of Leviticus, but they don't follow any other injunctions that are right next to it in the same verses, then I can't take them seriously as to why they don't like homosexuals. I think they are simply using the Bible as a ventriloquist so to speak.

But yes, I do believe they are telling the truth that they really don't like homosexuals.

Thanks for the clarification. In that regard, I'm in agreement.

As lonewulf said. You pretty much always hear the same passages in Church. They're never going to mention the bits I described above. They only go with the feel-good ones, and repeat them so that the faithful can learn them by heart and sing-along with the priest.

If we're talking Catholics (since you mentioned priests) then you're incorrect. I mentioned earlier that the Catholics read the entire Bible over the course of two years (IIRC), taking one reading from the OT, one from the NT and one from the Gospels. You still get the homily at the end, which explains it.

The LDS do something similar with their Sunday school, and I want to say so do the Lutherans, but it's been quite some time since I was at a Lutheran meeting.

However, few Christians, in my experience, actually read the bible on their own and discover the rest of it. It's a big difference, then.

Of course, I'm not claiming they're not really Christians by failing to read it. I'm just pointing out that few of them do.

Agreed. Quick stats show that something like 25%.

As a side note, I know of at least one person who says she believes the bible "litterally" but has never, ever read it. :boggled:

Literal interpretation always makes me nervous, especially since Jesus taught often by parable.

westprog

24th February 2009, 08:48 AM

If we're talking Catholics (since you mentioned priests) then you're incorrect. I mentioned earlier that the Catholics read the entire Bible over the course of two years (IIRC), taking one reading from the OT, one from the NT and one from the Gospels. You still get the homily at the end, which explains it.

I'm not sure whether the entire OT gets covered in the course of readings. The NT, probably.

Mister Agenda

24th February 2009, 09:10 AM

Christians have many approved denominations and beliefs.We enjoy a very large diversity and that gives us the flexibility to hold many diverse beliefs and still be considered christian. Atheists are limited. I think a true atheist is someone that believes that its impossible for God to exist. And I believe all other atheists are agnostics rather than soft atheists etc. I feel they are being disingenuous when they claim otherwise. Again no insult meant its my opinion.
; }>

I suppose that's fair if you're also classifying all theists who ever have any doubts or reservations as agnostics, too.

Most atheists around here think a true atheist is someone who, when asked the question 'Do you believe God is real?', answers 'no'.

When you ask someone whether they are a theist or atheist, you are not asking them if they think it is possible to know whether or not there is a God or gods, you are asking them whether or not they believe a God or gods exist in the sense that you or I exist, or in the sense that Sherlock Holmes or the Easter Bunny exists (that is, as influential fictional characters).

What is your basis for defining us differently than we define ourselves?

Lonewulf

24th February 2009, 09:34 AM

Literal interpretation always makes me nervous, especially since Jesus taught often by parable.

Except that the Old Testament is quite different, in goal, than Jesus' Teachings; while there are parables, there are also portions that are far too... descriptive (such as how to go about treating your slave, what happens when, what punishment should be given for what action, etc.) for them to be obviously parables.

Jews and Muslims take their religious books and the words of their prophets very seriously; it has nothing to do with parable, it's an actual prescription for living. Christians are one of the few exceptions to this rule, surprisingly, and even then, it depends on which sect you're dealing with.

Lonewulf

24th February 2009, 09:36 AM

What is your basis for defining us differently than we define ourselves?

Young Grasshopper, answer this question, and it shall give you the answer you seek:

Why does one build a man out of straw?

RobRoy

24th February 2009, 09:50 AM

I'm not sure whether the entire OT gets covered in the course of readings. The NT, probably.

My understanding is that if you attend the RCC mass for two years, you get the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments. Unless something has changed recently that I'm unaware of. It has been a very long time.

Except that the Old Testament is quite different, in goal, than Jesus' Teachings; while there are parables, there are also portions that are far too... descriptive (such as how to go about treating your slave, what happens when, what punishment should be given for what action, etc.) for them to be obviously parables.

Jews and Muslims take their religious books and the words of their prophets very seriously; it has nothing to do with parable, it's an actual prescription for living. Christians are one of the few exceptions to this rule, surprisingly, and even then, it depends on which sect you're dealing with.

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point here LW, since I agree with what you wrote. I'm guessing you were just expanding on my statement?

Lonewulf

24th February 2009, 09:53 AM

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point here LW, since I agree with what you wrote. I'm guessing you were just expanding on my statement?

I was attempting to clarify by pointing out that there are some obvious exceptions to the parables. In short, that part of the Bible is parable (mostly Jesus' teachings), and part is not (a how-to guide to living).

You were speaking in generic terms about whether or not the Bible (assumed to be "as a whole") is literal or not.

truethat

24th February 2009, 09:54 AM

Except that the Old Testament is quite different, in goal, than Jesus' Teachings; while there are parables, there are also portions that are far too... descriptive (such as how to go about treating your slave, what happens when, what punishment should be given for what action, etc.) for them to be obviously parables.

Jews and Muslims take their religious books and the words of their prophets very seriously; it has nothing to do with parable, it's an actual prescription for living. Christians are one of the few exceptions to this rule, surprisingly, and even then, it depends on which sect you're dealing with.

Exactly. Jesus supposedly came to fulfill the law. BTW Rob Roy I was raised Catholic as were many people I know. I didn't read the bible in its entirety until I left the Church.

You keep talking about rules and suggestions of the Church and the whole point of the thread is that Christians do not do this. They don't. They might be told to but they do not in reality.

Once more for enthusiasm. Most Christians have never read the entire bible. Most WILL never read the entire bible.

I don't even understand why you keep pretending that Christians on average read the bible when most do not. They might read some of it but not all of it.

The two defenders on this thread had no idea about the contradictions in Paul and the question in the bible of adherence to the law after Christ.

I bet you didn't know it was against the "law" of the bible, right there next to Homosexuality, to wear a poly cotton mix? Did you?

truethat

24th February 2009, 10:07 AM

Interesting article

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

RobRoy

24th February 2009, 11:08 AM

You were speaking in generic terms about whether or not the Bible (assumed to be "as a whole") is literal or not.

Actually, I wasn't. I was speaking to the concept of someone taking the entire Bible literally, when clearly there are areas where it was never intended to be taken as such. :D We appear to be in agreement in this regard, which I why I was confused as to your response.

Exactly. Jesus supposedly came to fulfill the law. BTW Rob Roy I was raised Catholic as were many people I know. I didn't read the bible in its entirety until I left the Church.

If you attended Catholic church consecutively for two years then you had the Bible read to you. If you didn't pay attention, I'm hardly surprised. The number of things that you've gotten wrong in this discussion because of your lack of attention is indicative of your standard operating procedure.

To wit:

You keep talking about rules and suggestions of the Church and the whole point of the thread is that Christians do not do this. They don't. They might be told to but they do not in reality.

What "rules and suggestions of the Church" do I keep talking about?

Once more for enthusiasm. Most Christians have never read the entire bible. Most WILL never read the entire bible.

Pay attention. I've never disputed this claim.

I don't even understand why you keep pretending that Christians on average read the bible when most do not. They might read some of it but not all of it.

Pay attention. I've never made this assertion.

The two defenders on this thread had no idea about the contradictions in Paul and the question in the bible of adherence to the law after Christ.

This proves what? That people don't read the bible? See above where I haven't disputed this.

I bet you didn't know it was against the "law" of the bible, right there next to Homosexuality, to wear a poly cotton mix? Did you?

Seriously, you need to pay attention (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4457967&postcount=522). My understanding of Leviticus (as well as the rest of the Bible) was on this same page. It's not even buried back where you might have forgotten I made the statement earlier. That might be forgivable. This just looks like random whining from someone who can't organize their arguments.

Mister Agenda

24th February 2009, 11:24 AM

Young Grasshopper, answer this question, and it shall give you the answer you seek:

Why does one build a man out of straw?

:D

Flo

25th February 2009, 01:12 AM

If you attended Catholic church consecutively for two years then you had the Bible read to you.

In your parish, maybe. It wasn't the case for me of for any catholics I know around here (majority of the population in France), including my parents and grandparents. We all had bits of the bible read or "explained" to us, and were certainly not encouraged to read most of the OT, mostly for fear we would discover the discutable passages, contradictions, historical accuracy, etc. Possession of a bible was OK, as long as it was the approved version.

As far as I know, it hasn't changed much.

ETA: I'm not claiming I know the majority of the French population, but that the majority of the French population is raised catholic ...

Belz...

25th February 2009, 04:31 AM

If we're talking Catholics (since you mentioned priests) then you're incorrect. I mentioned earlier that the Catholics read the entire Bible over the course of two years (IIRC)

You're talking to one (an ex-one, anyway), so it's you who are incorrect. We used to read only the same parts over and over and over again, both at school and in church.

We never heard about Leviticus or the massacres ordered by god or any of the other contradictions, atrocities or embarassing oddities of the bible.

Literal interpretation always makes me nervous, especially since Jesus taught often by parable.

Not only that, but the same people, when you point out a specific nonsensical passage, are quick to explain that this is not how they "interpret" it. Litterally my eye.

westprog

25th February 2009, 04:33 AM

If you attended Catholic church consecutively for two years then you had the Bible read to you.

You would indeed get passages from the bible read to you - and you'd get a sermon where the passages would be explained. Context from the readings would be explained in terms of contemporary Palestine.

Most stress would be placed on the New Testament, and within the New Testament, the four Gospels, and within those, the actual teachings of Christ. I don't think that the entire Old Testament would be read - and in general, Old Testament readings would be chosen in relation to that day's gospel.

Lonewulf

25th February 2009, 04:37 AM

truethat

25th February 2009, 09:28 AM

Actually, I wasn't. I was speaking to the concept of someone taking the entire Bible literally, when clearly there are areas where it was never intended to be taken as such. :D We appear to be in agreement in this regard, which I why I was confused as to your response.

If you attended Catholic church consecutively for two years then you had the Bible read to you. If you didn't pay attention, I'm hardly surprised. The number of things that you've gotten wrong in this discussion because of your lack of attention is indicative of your standard operating procedure.

Nice insult. Guess what. It doesn't make you right. The statement you made is that people READ the bible. My mother was a Sunday School teacher in Catholic school. My mother also read me the bible at home. Paying attention or not isn't the issue. The question is "Do you think for yourself or do you allow other people to do your thinking for you?"

It is pretty obvious what you consider thinking is being brainwashed. If you make sure you let it sink in the way they want you to, then you don't have to any work yourself.

This proves what? That people don't read the bible? See above where I haven't disputed this.

Yes you have. You just are moving the goal posts now that you see how ridiculous your claim is.

Seriously, you need to pay attention (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4457967&postcount=522). My understanding of Leviticus (as well as the rest of the Bible) was on this same page. It's not even buried back where you might have forgotten I made the statement earlier. That might be forgivable. This just looks like random whining from someone who can't organize their arguments.

I think it is funny that most of the people on the thread have no problem understanding my point except for you. Yet it never occurs to you that maybe you are the one with the problem. LOL :whistling

truethat

25th February 2009, 09:30 AM

truethat

25th February 2009, 09:31 AM

RobRoy

25th February 2009, 09:35 AM

In your parish, maybe. It wasn't the case for me of for any catholics I know around here (majority of the population in France), including my parents and grandparents. We all had bits of the bible read or "explained" to us, and were certainly not encouraged to read most of the OT, mostly for fear we would discover the discutable passages, contradictions, historical accuracy, etc. Possession of a bible was OK, as long as it was the approved version.

I don't know the particulars of the RCC in France, so I'm willing to concede that you are correct in regards to the Bible being read at mass. I was simply stating my understanding of the RCC's use of readings throughout, and I had been told that the RCC acts as a single unity in regards to the Bible readings. By which I mean that the RCC dictates what will be read and in what order, and on any given Sunday, that's what you will hear no matter where in the world you are sitting.

I've asserted previously that reading the Bible was not encouraged, or discouraged, that I'm aware, to any extent by the RCC, although more recently, as the laity have started to take control of their spiritual governing, Bible-study groups have become more the prevelant than they ever were before now. The focus of the RCC is and has always been that "true" interpretation of the Bible can only come from through the priests. Laity interpretation has rarely been considered viable when it diverged by the RCC's.

You're talking to one (an ex-one, anyway), so it's you who are incorrect. We used to read only the same parts over and over and over again, both at school and in church.

And you're talking back to one (an ex-one as well). I can't speak to your personal experience, only to my own, and what my research has told me. <shrug>

We never heard about Leviticus or the massacres ordered by god or any of the other contradictions, atrocities or embarassing oddities of the bible.

We did. <shrug again>

Not only that, but the same people, when you point out a specific nonsensical passage, are quick to explain that this is not how they "interpret" it. Litterally my eye.

Correct. The RCC, as Christian religions goes, is much less stringent on the literal interpretation. They've had two millenia to work out their apologetics, and they're keenly aware of the contradictions, which have caused any number of headaches over their history. Not to say that the RCC is the most forward thinking of Christian sects, but they certainly do have their message pretty well nailed down given the time they've had to work on it.

You would indeed get passages from the bible read to you - and you'd get a sermon where the passages would be explained. Context from the readings would be explained in terms of contemporary Palestine.

What do you mean by the last part? I'm not familiar with that sentiment regarding "in terms of conteporary Palestine".

Most stress would be placed on the New Testament, and within the New Testament, the four Gospels, and within those, the actual teachings of Christ. I don't think that the entire Old Testament would be read - and in general, Old Testament readings would be chosen in relation to that day's gospel.

Agreed, and I could easily be incorrect about the entire Bible being read. My first, full reading of the Bible did not reveal any new stories, events, or information from my attendance of Catholic mass over the years, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't new. It just means that I didn't think it was new. I could easily be wrong about this.

I shot an email to a good friend who is a member of a particular religious order (I think the laity arm of the Dominicans, but don't quote me). He stated that I was wrong about the two years, it's actually a three year Lectionary cycle, and that as far as he knows, the entire Bible is read. He also stated that he wasn't 100% on this, so we both could be wrong.

Ah, my mistake!

No worries. Monday-miscommunication seems to happen to me all week long. I'm always pleased to read your comments on any particular subject, as you generally have good insight and thoughts. :D

Lonewulf

25th February 2009, 09:37 AM

No worries. Monday-miscommunication seems to happen to me all week long. I'm always pleased to read your comments on any particular subject, as you generally have good insight and thoughts. :D

:blush:

My dear RobRoy, flattery will get you everywhere.

RobRoy

25th February 2009, 09:50 AM

Nice insult.

Not an insult. A general description based on your responses throughout this thread.

Guess what. It doesn't make you right.

In regards to how you function, yes it does.

The statement you made is that people READ the bible.

Ummm, people do read the Bible. But I'm guessing that you mean I stated that all or a majority of Christians read the Bible. In that regard, can show me where I made this statement?

I'll make a prediction that you can't/won't, and that another comment about my "lack of understanding" will be forthcoming. Repetition of a bad argument doesn't make it any more persuasive. But hey, thanks for playing! :whistling

My mother was a Sunday School teacher in Catholic school. My mother also read me the bible at home.

Congrats. My mother was almost a nun. My brother was almost a priest. This proves what?

Paying attention or not isn't the issue.

It is when you've either missed what I've said or are deliberately lying about what I've said. I am assuming the best scenario and that you're not a liar. Perhaps I'm wrong?

The question is "Do you think for yourself or do you allow other people to do your thinking for you?"

It is pretty obvious what you consider thinking is being brainwashed. If you make sure you let it sink in the way they want you to, then you don't have to any work yourself.

If you mean do I pull out the party line and use it as an argument, then you're incorrect. My posts show that this is not the case.

Yes you have. You just are moving the goal posts now that you see how ridiculous your claim is.

Oh good. Then you can show where I made this claim and then show where I moved the goal posts? I'd be very interested to see those two posts.

Again, I'm going to posit that you can't/won't do this. But again, thanks for playing! :whistling

I think it is funny that most of the people on the thread have no problem understanding my point except for you. Yet it never occurs to you that maybe you are the one with the problem. LOL :whistling

I understand what you're saying. I disagree with it. I've made this statement before, but again, you probably weren't paying attention. I think it's unfortunate that you don't seem to understand the difference between those two concepts. :whistling

truethat

25th February 2009, 09:58 AM

You also are telling Belz and Flo and westprog that their experiences count for nothing because they go against what you are saying.

Instead of telling me that I'm not paying attention why not take this opportunity to make your point?

What is your point when you say

If we're talking Catholics (since you mentioned priests) then you're incorrect. I mentioned earlier that the Catholics read the entire Bible over the course of two years (IIRC), taking one reading from the OT, one from the NT and one from the Gospels. You still get the homily at the end, which explains it.

What part of your own words don't you understand? Let me guess you expect us to pay attention to what you REALLY meant even though you posted this flat out blanket statement about CATHOLICS and stated that CATHOLICS read the ENTIRE BIBLE over the course of TWO YEARS.

Now you pay attention to your own words. You are now saying you've never said this?

You had to concede that you were wrong. You are WRONG in this assertion and many others that you have made since the beginning of the thread.

My posts have remained the same. You have been forced to change your position. This is usually an indication of someone misunderstanding or being WRONG.

So before you start off telling me that I am not paying attention why not notice that several people in this thread have agreed with me. That no one but you seems to be having a problem understanding my point.

And that if you have to change your position you are probably wrong in the things you are saying. Instead of focusing on "correcting" my errors, worry about your own.

What exactly are you saying that I'm missing here?

My point has been consistent despite your many efforts to derail the conversation. You say I didn't "pay attention" in church but then are forced to concede to other posters than you are wrong?

Wow.

Oh wait, I missed the part where you shot an email to "a friend" and that solves it. Ridiculous. Truly.

RobRoy

25th February 2009, 10:08 AM

:blush:

My dear RobRoy, flattery will get you everywhere.

Only if you're 23, look like Keira Knightley, and are interested in older, guys with a penchant for marketing! :D

Lonewulf

25th February 2009, 10:10 AM

Well, except for there.

Ron_Tomkins

25th February 2009, 10:10 AM

Indeed

This is what Daniel C Dennett refers to as "belief in belief"

truethat

25th February 2009, 10:20 AM

Interesting article about Daniel Dent.

http://www.mail-archive.com/mythfolk@yahoogroups.com/msg00560.html

This is very interesting

Dennett puts forward other hypotheses concerning the evolution of
religion. He observes that belief, which means accepting certain
doctrines as true, is different from belief in belief, which means
believing belief in the same doctrines to be desirable. He finds
evidence that large numbers of people who identify themselves as
religious believers do not in fact believe the doctrines of their
religions but only believe in belief as a desirable goal. The phenomenon
of "belief in belief" makes religion attractive to many people who would
otherwise be hard to convert. To belong to a religion, you do not have
to believe. You only have to want to believe, or perhaps you only have
to pretend to believe. Belief is difficult, but belief in belief is
easy. Belief in belief is one of the important phenomena that give a
religion increased transmissibility and consequently increased fitness.
Dennett puts forward this connection between belief in belief and
fitness as a hypothesis to be tested, not as a scientifically
established fact. He regrets that little of the relevant research has
yet been done. The title Breaking the Spell expresses his hope that when
the scientific analysis of religion has been completed, the power of
religion to overawe human reason will be broken.

Thanks for the connection.

Ron_Tomkins

25th February 2009, 10:36 AM

Sure. And yes, that is exactly what I was referring to.

He also mentions it in the interview with Johnattan Miller, from the Atheist Tapes, which can be accessed on youtube.

Thanz

25th February 2009, 11:02 AM

Interesting article

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
That is a fantastic article. Clearly the author has read the Bible, believes in God, and is not lying about it. He illustrates quite clearly how wrong it is to isolate a few passages from the Bible to use to back up another agenda.

One intersting note is that the author, Mel White, is currently a contestant on The Amazing Race. This past week he had to do a challenge that involved paragliding off a mountain in Germany. As the wind is unpredictable, there was an option to run down a path on the mountain rather than wait for favourable wind conditions. Mel couldn't do the run as he was nursing a pulled muscle in his groin. So, he had to wait. As he was waiting, he made it a point to not pray for a change in the wind as "God has more important things to do than change the wind for me."

I didn't know who this guy was a few weeks ago, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for him.

Minarvia

25th February 2009, 01:34 PM

You would indeed get passages from the bible read to you - and you'd get a sermon where the passages would be explained. Context from the readings would be explained in terms of contemporary Palestine.

Most stress would be placed on the New Testament, and within the New Testament, the four Gospels, and within those, the actual teachings of Christ. I don't think that the entire Old Testament would be read - and in general, Old Testament readings would be chosen in relation to that day's gospel.

I haven't yet read the rest of the posts here, but when I came upon this I would have envied you when I was catholic. I went to church consistently for well more than 2 years and cannot say that I had even close to a small portion of the bible read to me. I don't know if this is due to the particular priest, diocese, or what. But if I had relied on church alone I would have learned next to nothing about the book.

Edit - Sorry, should have responded to RobRoy in particular. I just read my own post and it looks like I'm responding to westprog.

RobRoy, do you think you just happened to have a very thorough church or priest? Did your church have only a priest do the readings or did you also have the...uh...I cannot recall what they are called, but the non-priests, (deacons?) read as well?

Minarvia

25th February 2009, 01:40 PM

Indeed

This is what Daniel C Dennett refers to as "belief in belief"

Kind of like, "being in love with love," I guess. I hadn't thought of that. Nice one. :)

RobRoy

25th February 2009, 02:32 PM

You also are telling Belz and Flo and westprog that their experiences count for nothing because they go against what you are saying.

Yeppers, in comparison with my own experiences, that's correct. I've allowed that I may be wrong in this matter, but I can only go on what I know. :D

What part of your own words don't you understand? Let me guess you expect us to pay attention to what you REALLY meant even though you posted this flat out blanket statement about CATHOLICS and stated that CATHOLICS read the ENTIRE BIBLE over the course of TWO YEARS.

I stated exactly what I believe to be the case. What's so tricky about that?

Now you pay attention to your own words. You are now saying you've never said this?

Clearly, you're not paying attention again. No real shocker there.

You had to concede that you were wrong. You are WRONG in this assertion and many others that you have made since the beginning of the thread.

I don't believe that I am wrong in this regard, but this is where you and I diverge. I did not come to this forum under the delusion that I am infallible. I've made errors, mistakes and been wrong. I'm willing, under the auspices of any discussion here to admit it when I am, and move forward.

My posts have remained the same. You have been forced to change your position. This is usually an indication of someone misunderstanding or being WRONG.

My position regarding your OP and through the discussion has remained the same. Sorry if you weren't paying attention again.

So before you start off telling me that I am not paying attention why not notice that several people in this thread have agreed with me. That no one but you seems to be having a problem understanding my point.

Ooops, looks like I spoke too soon.

Is this a fallacy of numbers I see? :cool:

And that if you have to change your position you are probably wrong in the things you are saying. Instead of focusing on "correcting" my errors, worry about your own.

What exactly are you saying that I'm missing here?

I haven't changed my position in regards to the OP. I've said that at least twice now in this post, and I believe several times throughout the discussion. I do hope you're paying attention this time! :boggled:

My point has been consistent despite your many efforts to derail the conversation. You say I didn't "pay attention" in church but then are forced to concede to other posters than you are wrong?

Wow.

I have never tried to derail the conversation. I guess your lack of attention has just given way to your dishonesty in this regard.

Oh wait, I missed the part where you shot an email to "a friend" and that solves it. Ridiculous. Truly.

Yes, that's what called evidence from authority. It's not always reliable, but it's a good step if you're doing the proper research. My source stated he wasn't 100% certain on his statements, and I provided that, since I like to tell the truth and not mislead anyone.

RobRoy

25th February 2009, 03:03 PM

I haven't yet read the rest of the posts here, but when I came upon this I would have envied you when I was catholic. I went to church consistently for well more than 2 years and cannot say that I had even close to a small portion of the bible read to me. I don't know if this is due to the particular priest, diocese, or what. But if I had relied on church alone I would have learned next to nothing about the book.

Edit - Sorry, should have responded to RobRoy in particular. I just read my own post and it looks like I'm responding to westprog.

Since this was meant for me, I'll respond. As I said above, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong in this regard. I had understood, and my source supports, that the Bible is read over the three year Lectionary cycle. I've got a call into a parish priest to provide specific details on this matter. I'll be certain to check if this is something that is up to the individual priest, or if it is universal.

RobRoy, do you think you just happened to have a very thorough church or priest? Did your church have only a priest do the readings or did you also have the...uh...I cannot recall what they are called, but the non-priests, (deacons?) read as well?

I honestly don't know. We had several priests over the years, due to retirement, death, and relocation (both my family and the priests). I suppose that my particular parish might have just been high maintenance in this regard, but since I didn't sit on any councils and wasn't in the know myself, I couldn't say.

Priests, deacons, lectors, and cantors can all take part in the readings. It just depends on how well-staffed the church is.

One of the churches I attened was fully-staffed with a priest, deacon, various lectors, and cantors.

Patsy

25th February 2009, 05:15 PM

truethat

25th February 2009, 05:54 PM

Rob Roy

Pay attention.

Ok here's how it works.

When you state that Catholics in general are read the entire bible in two years time. And then you are confronted but many different former Catholics who do not share the same experience as you AND you are told by your friend who you consider your authority that you are wrong in the number of years at best.

then

It isn't a "possibility" that you are wrong.

It is a fact.

truethat

25th February 2009, 05:56 PM

I've been trying to research the issue of bible reading, specifically reading of the entire bible by Christians. I keep seeing two studies referred to, mostly by Christian sites exhorting people to read their bibles, one done by Gallup and one by Barna, but

Disclaimer; I've not been able to find the actual studies to confirm the information. Maybe someone's google fu is better than mine.

What I am seeing quoted are figures giving the upper figure as something around 25%, but when asked specifically if they have read from Genesis to Revelations, the figure falling to less than 10%. I find it difficult to think that Christian websites would be quoting these unflattering figures if they did not reasonably estimate the complete bible readers in Christianity.

Well they aren't paying attention obviously Patsy. Sheesh everyone knows that!

There'd be no way to establish this as a fact in any sort of practical way. For me it just becomes obvious when you are talking about things that people don't know are from the bible.

Like according to Leviticus wearing a poly cotton mix is a sin right up there with Homosexuality and having sex with your daughter.

Quite funny.

Belz...

26th February 2009, 04:25 AM

And you're talking back to one (an ex-one as well). I can't speak to your personal experience, only to my own, and what my research has told me. <shrug>

Then it just serves to show that even Catholics from one corner or another can't agree on how these things are to be interpreted.

We did. <shrug again>

Well, that proves it, then.

RobRoy

26th February 2009, 08:39 AM

Then it just serves to show that even Catholics from one corner or another can't agree on how these things are to be interpreted.

Or just shows that anyone can be wrong about anything.

Well, that proves it, then.

My conversation with the priest (Fr. Timony) was most enlightening, and I think I know why we have different opinions on this matter. He stated that while it is true you will get the full Lectionary cycle in three years time, that is only if you attend daily mass in addition to a Sabbath mass (Saturday or Sunday). Since I was in Catholic grade school, and we started each day with Mass, this likely makes up for the disparity between your experience and my own.

So there we have it! :D

Belz...

26th February 2009, 09:05 AM

Since I was in Catholic grade school, and we started each day with Mass

Talk about drilling nonsense in children's heads.

RobRoy

26th February 2009, 09:12 AM

Talk about drilling nonsense in children's heads.

Only if you think it's nonsense. :D

I actually think kindly on this portion of my education, as I now get more Biblical references in movies and television shows that most others.

Of course, that's about all the good I can say about that time. It wasn't exactly the happiest way to get an education.

truethat

26th February 2009, 09:14 AM

Or just shows that anyone can be wrong about anything.

My conversation with the priest (Fr. Timony) was most enlightening, and I think I know why we have different opinions on this matter. He stated that while it is true you will get the full Lectionary cycle in three years time, that is only if you attend daily mass in addition to a Sabbath mass (Saturday or Sunday). Since I was in Catholic grade school, and we started each day with Mass, this likely makes up for the disparity between your experience and my own.

So there we have it! :D

My son attended Catholic school two years ago because it was a safer zoned school. They didn't attend mass every day.

Perhaps what likely makes up for the disparity between your experiences and everyone elses is that we haven't isolated ourselves into our little experience and decided that everyone else must share the same experience until confronted with opposition on a message board.

Seriously how isolated have you been to make some of the statements you have made on here.

Fr. Timothy is no more an expert than my mother the sunday school teacher now is he?

Three years time is news to me for the entire bible being read. I call total baloney on that. I went to Catholic church religiously for nearly 10 years and we didn't hear the entire bible at all. That's a joke. We heard, as seems to be the experience of most Christians I've met, the same ones over and over again. The more popular ones that focused on an aspects of Jesus people found enlightening.

RobRoy

26th February 2009, 09:42 AM

My son attended Catholic school two years ago because it was a safer zoned school. They didn't attend mass every day.

Do try to pay attention. I know it's really, really hard for you when you feel so righteously correct, but it will help when you make these errors so consistently. I didn't say that all Catholic grade schools attended Mass every day before school started, did I? I said that my Catholic grade school did, and this explained the disparity between my experience and that of Belz's.

Perhaps what likely makes up for the disparity between your experiences and everyone elses is that we haven't isolated ourselves into our little experience and decided that everyone else must share the same experience until confronted with opposition on a message board.

No. What makes up the disparity between my experiences and those of others is that we're all difference people who have led different lives.

Seriously how isolated have you been to make some of the statements you have made on here.

Such as?

Fr. Timothy is no more an expert than my mother the sunday school teacher now is he?

Actually, yes. As a priest of the Catholic church, Fr. Timony (no 'th', but your lack of attention accounts for that) would be considered expert testimony on the practices of the Catholic church, more so than your mother.

Three years time is news to me for the entire bible being read. I call total baloney on that. I went to Catholic church religiously for nearly 10 years and we didn't hear the entire bible at all. That's a joke. We heard, as seems to be the experience of most Christians I've met, the same ones over and over again. The more popular ones that focused on an aspects of Jesus people found enlightening.

Well, here we are again. Your lack of attention to the discussion has placed you in a position where you make these foolish statements, unsupported by any kind of evidence, and already proved to be wrong through the research and evidence of others.

Either you are desperately in need of some medication to help your attention, or increase your retention, or you're a liar, intellectually dishonest and unable to comprehend simple evidence.

truethat

26th February 2009, 09:50 AM

Rob Roy you keep saying my lack of attention over and over and over again. You have derailed the conversation from the original topic to discuss your Catholic School experience which only is relevant because you attempted to speak for all Catholics in your original statement.

We all agree that you are wrong. Now please stop derailing the conversation with insults just because you are miffed at being proven wrong.

I'd like to get back on to the topic of Belief of Belief because this is really at the heart of the matter. Those that religiously attend Sunday service because they feel that is what a "Good Christian does" but then never bothers to pick up the bible in their own time seem to be enacting exactly this sentiment. If you truly believed it would be your reality not your disconnected ritual. Catholics especially are known for keeping ritualistic observation of their faith rather than "living the word" this is why many charismatic Christians leave the Catholic Church

Here is more on the original topic

Belief in Belief in God
Timothy Sandefur on Apr 6th 2006

Some more thoughts in addition to Kuznicki’s post. In Breaking the Spell, Dennett draws a distinction between the actual belief in God and the belief in the belief in God. He’s not just talking about those who see religion as a useful political tool—as do some Straussians. He’s talking about people who believe that it is right and good for them to believe in God, and struggle to do so, even when they may not actually believe in God, or even to the degree that they may not themselves be sure what they believe one way or the other with regard to God’s existence. They simply believe that believing in God is what good people do, or has some other beneficial consequences.

And, of course, it’s entirely true that believing in God could have beneficial personal or social consequences, and that may very well explain our predisposition to believe in supernatural beings. But, of course, that no more justifies a belief in the supernatural in a logical sense than it would justify any other false, but useful, belief.

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/04/belief-in-belief-in-god.html

RobRoy

26th February 2009, 02:33 PM

Rob Roy you keep saying my lack of attention over and over and over again.

This is because your lack of attention to what people (not just me) are saying has ended up with you being wrong so very many times. Trying to help you out here, even if it's unappreciated. ;)

You have derailed the conversation from the original topic to discuss your Catholic School experience which only is relevant because you attempted to speak for all Catholics in your original statement.

First, not a derail, since it was a legitimate question regarding a particular sect of Christians and their use of the Bible in services. Second, I didn't start it. Third (if you've read this far) I didn't claim to speak for all Catholics. But thanks for playing! :D

We all agree that you are wrong.

"We" do? Who is we? I assume you can show me all those who agreed that I'm wrong? Or is this another time when you'll be unable to address my question as you did all the other times you've made erroneous claims about me? :jaw-dropp

Now please stop derailing the conversation with insults just because you are miffed at being proven wrong.

You taking umbrage for insults is funny. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4413263&postcount=378)

I'd like to get back on to the topic of Belief of Belief because this is really at the heart of the matter. Those that religiously attend Sunday service because they feel that is what a "Good Christian does" but then never bothers to pick up the bible in their own time seem to be enacting exactly this sentiment.

As has been explained to you before, there are numerous reasons, aside from deliberate deceit, that account for this behavior. That Christians act contrary to your enlightened sensibilities does not make it fact. Proof is required, of which you have not provided precious little, and none that is persuasive.

If you truly believed it would be your reality not your disconnected ritual. Catholics especially are known for keeping ritualistic observation of their faith rather than "living the word" this is why many charismatic Christians leave the Catholic Church

Here is more on the original topic

It's probably too much to ask for you to support this claim, but I'll try anyhow. Do you have any support for this? A citation perhaps? Some statistics that show correlation and causation?

The blog-article you provided was not specific to Catholics and charismatic Christians and provided no proof for the claim you made.

truethat

27th February 2009, 06:12 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605

Here's video with Bill Moyers interviewing Daniel Dennett

Minarvia

27th February 2009, 09:21 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605

Here's video with Bill Moyers interviewing Daniel Dennett

I'm not trying to be picky here when I say that off the top of my head I don't see how this blends in with the OP, but thanks. I think you are responding to RobRoy, right?

I just finished watching this. It was quite interesting. I particularly enjoyed the civility of the 2 men and the reasonable and insightful questions. If only more people could have such rational and friendly interchanges of ideas and genuine interest in the other's point of view.

truethat

28th February 2009, 04:45 AM

No I didn't post it to Rob Roy. Several people have PMed me to say that they think he's just screwing around in the thread. He claims things and then when proven wrong he attacks so it seems like he's just annoyed at the idea of the thread because its hitting a little too close to home. I think Rob Roy is just wasting everyone's time so I'm moving on.

The Daniel Dennett theory, which I had never heard of before is absolutely what I am talking about. He doesn't explain it so so much in this clip but I enjoyed it for the same reasons you did. In my life this is generally how I discuss religion with others. I also think that Bill Moyers (who is a favorite of mine) is not someone who I would claim is believing in belief. And you could see it in his demeanor how it was inconceivable to him that Dennett didn't believe in God. BIll Moyers is well read in the bible and other religious books.

However most Christians I encounter are not like Bill Moyer. And so they sit there in a sort of permanent defensiveness always spoiling for a fight, at the ready with an insult. You will notice that this type of Christians position themselves with an arsenal of attack strategies around them to cover up the fact that they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the bible. This usually reveals itself pretty quickly into the conversation.

I find that when you talk to some Christians about certain things and confront them with reason then tend to back away with hands up saying "Look all I know is that is what it says in the sacred book!" and that's supposed to be enough. I agree with Dennett that we need as a society to stop granting respect to that kind of an answer. I like how he said that we should take faith off the table. I also liked his comparison to "My friend Lucille who is always right" I like his assertion that even if we accept that the Christian believes that God did say this, and this is why they follow it, that they should be able to explain to the rest of us their reasoning.

This is in relation to the attack on homosexuals. I don't usually encounter a Christian who says that they think homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and they think the person is sick. Most of them hide this sentiment behind the PC answer of "It says so in the book" so this book becomes a cover for their bias.

One of the interesting phrases he used is that Faith protects Religion from scrutiny and God from scrutiny.

I disagree with his assertion that people should be forced to teach about all religions. I don't like the idea of enforced learning.

I'll see if I can find more.

I posted this because this is the kind of dialogue I'd like to have not the nonsense that has been going on in the thread.

Here's a Wikilink to Daniel Dennett

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605

Here is his book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomen on

Lonewulf

28th February 2009, 09:04 AM

No I didn't post it to Rob Roy. Several people have PMed me to say that they think he's just screwing around in the thread.Again with the "many people PMing me" argument? Does that ever really get old for you?

truethat

28th February 2009, 09:07 AM

Again with the Stalker posts that have nothing to do with the thread. Amusing because you are wrong and the posters here know it. Maybe people don't PM you lonewulf. Sorry about that! :nope:

You are in love with me I see? Follow me around the board involving yourself on my threads just to talk to me personally. Rarely to contribute. Its almost sad. Try going on facebook or something to see if you can make some kind of friendship in your life so you don't have to stalk me.

truethat

28th February 2009, 09:11 AM

Here is a more bold approach to the idea of Christian lying in faith.............

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

'On Lying'

Believe it or not, Augustine devoted two whole treatises to the topic of lying. The first of these, 'De mendacio' ('On Lying'), written in 395, discussed the pros and cons of lying.

On balance, of the eight kinds of lie which he identified (each with several sub-types!) he excused 'jocular' lies, was 'uncertain' about others (depending on motive and the likelihood of being believed) but questioned the morality of the remainder.

The second tract 'Contra mendacium', written in 422, cautioned the brethren against lying. Evidently they needed the warning.

"One never errs more safely, methinks, than when one errs by too much loving the truth, and too much rejecting of falsehood."

– St Augustine, Retractations, Book I

Lonewulf

28th February 2009, 09:36 AM

Again with the Stalker posts that have nothing to do with the thread.

Actually, you used your argument as an excuse to ignore RobRoy's arguments, so I felt that it was a part of the conversation.

Amusing because you are wrong and the posters here know it.I'm wrong about what, exactly?

Maybe people don't PM you lonewulf. Sorry about that! :nope:Uuuuh... if you want to believe that, you're welcome to. There's no law that states that your beliefs have to match with reality, after all.

You are in love with me I see?No. Sorry, but I'm not gay.

Follow me around the board involving yourself on my threads just to talk to me personally.I was already involved in this thread.

Rarely to contribute.
I was already contributing in this thread. In fact, you even quoted me to agree with me earlier in the thread. I have 8,128 posts on this forum (as of this post right now). About .3% of them involve you, directly or indirectly, and even that's reaching. Your assumptions have no evidence for them.

Its almost sad. Try going on facebook or something to see if you can make some kind of friendship in your life so you don't have to stalk me.
I'm already on Facebook. I have many names of the people I met at the Max Weber Haus, and several more I wish was on there, but I cannot find yet (either because of the silly way Facebook is structured, or because they aren't on it in the first place). I'm also capable of knowing people outside of the internet -- you know, in the real world.

What does all of this have to do with your assertion earlier?

Herzblut

28th February 2009, 10:02 AM

Actually, you used your argument as an excuse to ignore RobRoy's arguments, so I felt that it was a part of the conversation.

I'm wondering, though, if appeal to anonymous acclamation is a compelling argument.

truethat

28th February 2009, 10:58 AM

Not necessarily. But the consensus seems to be "Bored people trying to disrupt a thread" if I felt either Rob Roy or Lonewulf's contributions were sincere at this point I might consider it. After all as Lonewulf himself has argued that I did reply to his point when it was about the topic.

Then again I replied as well as not. It just seems really odd to me to be obsessed about an online poster to the degree that you follow them around posting in their threads whilst at the same time claiming that said poster is a total fraud.

He is also obsessed with claiming that I am not a woman? Why?

Quite strange.

I feel the thread has been derailed from a real conversation as a few people have told me that they lost interest when that happened I'd like to try to get it back on track. Since Lonewulf is obsessed with online aggression towards me, he's trying to derail it as well.

I would like to continue the conversation.

chillzero

28th February 2009, 11:03 AM

Get the thread back on topic, with less of the personalised posts please.

truethat

28th February 2009, 11:15 AM

Interesting. Here is a Christian that is accusing other Christians of being insincere. You'll note that she woke up to this fact after she actually sat down and read the bible.

http://www.raptureready.com/christian-life/ww5.html

Lonewulf

28th February 2009, 02:11 PM

I'm wondering, though, if appeal to anonymous acclamation is a compelling argument.

Fair question, mein Herr!

truethat

28th February 2009, 03:48 PM

You are the 'problem' not God. I have told you that the only thing you have to do to be christian is to accept Jesus and to repent for your sins. Its that easy. How difficult is that?

Its not difficult eh? Now, if you want to be a student of the bible and of theology and to know all there is to know about the religion you will have to do what you have to do in any discipline. Study for years and apply yourself. I think many of you here are confusing being a scholar with being a christian. You can be a christian in a hour of first seeing a bible. If you wish to become a scholar its a life time of study, and depending on your field of study maybe a lifetime of sacrifice.

; {>

You should not preach if you are going to use such double handed moves. You said yourself that most people don't realize how involved repenting really is.......yet you suggest like some AS SEEN ON TV that its just twelve easy payments......how hard is that?????

You diminish Christ's sacrifice and pretend that salvation is easy breezy. And by your own admission this is not the case.

So I have to ask you why you would use such a devious statement and present it to people like a trap?

This is what I am talking about when I say that I think the person who claims to be Christian is lying.

I've seen several Christians on this thread and not a one has behaved in an authentic manner.

You are no different. The reason that people don't accept your suggestion that:
Its not difficult eh?

A sincere believer would not mock or deride a non believer for struggling with faith, because if he had TRULY converted he would have been shaken to the core and understood the enormity of such a sacrifice.

When I see someone like you baiting people online with passive aggression I see that you are not truly "Saved" but rather someone who defends his "beliefs" and his beliefs are a matter of choice that he has logically sorted out for himself.

You don't need to be a scholar in order to understand the humility of Grace and "being saved" if you are walking around Chuffed at yourself for being to sniper shot off and WIN against non believers, if you tell people that they are fools not to believe and that its "EASY" to do.............

well I call you a bald faced liar. This doesn't sound like any sincere Christian I have ever met.

Belz...

2nd March 2009, 04:44 AM

There's no law that states that your beliefs have to match with reality, after all.

Don't you just hate that ?

You should not preach if you are going to use such double handed moves.

Depends on which fighting style he uses.

Lonewulf

2nd March 2009, 04:48 AM

Don't you just hate that ?Eh, it's fine. Even the rampant liars make this place slightly interesting. Get rid of them, and we have no one to point and laugh at. :D

alfalfafour

2nd March 2009, 05:25 AM

Thanks for the segue, Chillzero.

I was wondering how to approach the current condition of the thread since it was the subject line which caught my attention.

Richard Dawkins made an interesting point in The God Delusion.
Polls suggest that approximately 95 per cent of the population of the United States believe they will survive their own death. I can’t help wondering how many people who claim such belief really, in their heart of hearts, hold it.

I actually still struggle with it. I believe I see communications from the dead, but my spirits lie, so I really don't know where the communications from. It makes it hard to be a "true believer" and I am more the skeptical believer, like a doubting Thomas.

Many of us atheists have similar experiences in dealing with so called believers and come to the same conclusion as Dawkins' observation. If you REALLY believed in God, you wouldn't behave the way you do.

So why exactly is it that Atheists don't want religion taught, but then go to fight against it in a forum that is clearly labeled "religion," and probably learn more about it that they ever would have in school. Who is really behaving strangely here? If you dis-believe, great! Why the discussion?

Yet he had a pagan Christmas tree this year and bought his wife gold for Christmas. Apparently he was unaware that these two things were big NoNos to God.

IMHO, That would be a personal belief exclusive to your perception of god. Others have been known to call him by different names and have different laws. One guy actually declared that you only need two laws. I think you only need his second one. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" If you follow that one, and call god your neighbor, then you have obeyed that Jesus dudes first law.

Flo

2nd March 2009, 06:08 AM

So why exactly is it that Atheists don't want religion taught, but then go to fight against it in a forum that is clearly labeled "religion," and probably learn more about it that they ever would have in school. Who is really behaving strangely here? If you dis-believe, great! Why the discussion?

The question is whether we're talking about "teaching religion" (as in "religious indoctrination") and "teaching about religion". I don't think atheists in general are against the latter, since it is one excellent guard against the former.

alfalfafour

2nd March 2009, 06:25 AM

The question is whether we're talking about "teaching religion" (as in "religious indoctrination") and "teaching about religion". I don't think atheists in general are against the latter, since it is one excellent guard against the former.

I don't know? Most of the athiests I have ever conversed with (until this site) were more interested in teaching that religion causes wars and oppression than actually telling the "mythical" stories that the religions are based upon. I must again congratulate the Athiests on this site for restoring my faith in human intelligence. I was starting to believe that the reason that the aliens probe obscure locations was because they were looking for human intelligence and hadn't found any within the cranium.

Flo

2nd March 2009, 07:23 AM

I don't know? Most of the athiests I have ever conversed with (until this site) were more interested in teaching that religion causes wars and oppression than actually telling the "mythical" stories that the religions are based upon.

Maybe because that is definitely something to know about religions ...

I must again congratulate the Athiests on this site for restoring my faith in human intelligence.

Thank you.

I was starting to believe that the reason that the aliens probe obscure locations was because they were looking for human intelligence and hadn't found any within the cranium.

That is actually a good explanation, considering whose derrière they've been investigating so far ...

truethat

2nd March 2009, 08:48 AM

I don't know? Most of the athiests I have ever conversed with (until this site) were more interested in teaching that religion causes wars and oppression than actually telling the "mythical" stories that the religions are based upon. I must again congratulate the Athiests on this site for restoring my faith in human intelligence. I was starting to believe that the reason that the aliens probe obscure locations was because they were looking for human intelligence and hadn't found any within the cranium.

That's not true. If you listen to what Daniel Dennett talks about he is a very strong atheist and he wants ALL religions mandatory as part of education.

I disagree with him on this point. You say why are we interested in religion if we don't believe.

The thing is, while God may not be real, faith is real. Faith is an observable phenomenon in the human condition that extends across time and the planet.
This is fascinating to observe for many of us. While you might take it to mean that deep inside we secretly believe or want to, the truth is, it is a fascinating topic.

To me, the phenomenon of faith has developed history in a very powerful way. Faith continues to influence the world. Religion continues to influence the world. Yes Religion and faith cause mountains of problems. It effects our lives. Why wouldn't we want to understand what it is all about.

For people like me, I want to understand why people believe what they do. And so my focus has been on faith. And like Dennett I have come to the conclusion that most people are not sincere when they say they believe in God. They actually believe in belief which makes sense since it is observable.

Religion and faith are in my opinion left over memes in the evolutionary process that once served a purpose but is now overrunning itself. Dennett compares religion to a sweet tooth gene. He says that for a long time that sweet tooth gene was very useful to mankind. But now in this world of easy access and refined sugars it can actually cause us harm. He compares this to how religion is doing the same thing.

Wanting to understand a phenomenon in the human experience is not a sign of anything other than scholarly interest.

RobRoy

2nd March 2009, 09:00 AM

I'm not trying to be picky here when I say that off the top of my head I don't see how this blends in with the OP, but thanks. I think you are responding to RobRoy, right?

Nopers, not a response to me. My questions are pretty simple, pretty basic, and have been consistently ignored. I was not the only one to voice such skepticism regarding truethat's assertions, but she has consistently avoided addressing them, which is unfortunate since they probe the heart of the OP and subsequent statements.

alfalfafour

2nd March 2009, 10:17 AM

That's not true. If you listen to what Daniel Dennett talks about he is a very strong atheist and he wants ALL religions mandatory as part of education..

Actually it was true. I don't even know who Daniel Dennet is, and you might be interested in a more careful examination of what I actually said befre you declare it "false"

You say why are we interested in religion if we don't believe... Again, I am misquoted. I simply asked the same question the OP asked from a different direction.

The thing is, while God may not be real, faith is real. Faith is an observable phenomenon in the human condition that extends across time and the planet.
This is fascinating to observe for many of us. While you might take it to mean that deep inside we secretly believe or want to, the truth is, it is a fascinating topic...

I have faith that eventually more people will realize that faith is required to learn anything. If I have no faith in my teacher, I won't sit still to listen.

Wanting to understand a phenomenon in the human experience is not a sign of anything other than scholarly interest.

I truely agree. I am still trying to learn why I am so consistantly misquoted.

Herzblut

3rd March 2009, 02:20 AM

Fair question, mein Herr!
I talked to a lot of people, they all said it isn't! :)

Lonewulf

3rd March 2009, 04:25 AM

I have faith that eventually more people will realize that faith is required to learn anything. If I have no faith in my teacher, I won't sit still to listen.

A bit of a disingenuous statement. You have a reason to have "faith" in your teacher (and even then, there have been times when my instructors have been shown to be wrong on a few things, though I would still trust them on most things). The teacher is selected for his/her job for something that they spent a portion of their life studying. It's not like a teacher is a Divine Voice springing out of nowhere.

truethat

3rd March 2009, 05:34 AM

Good point.

RobRoy

3rd March 2009, 07:39 AM

A bit of a disingenuous statement. You have a reason to have "faith" in your teacher (and even then, there have been times when my instructors have been shown to be wrong on a few things, though I would still trust them on most things). The teacher is selected for his/her job for something that they spent a portion of their life studying. It's not like a teacher is a Divine Voice springing out of nowhere.

Isn't this kinna what alfalfafour is saying, when he stated, "If have no faith in my teacher, I won't sit still to listen." Even wrong a few times, as you state, there is still faith there. Wrong all the time would suggest a lack of faith in those abilities, and thus no learning could take place.

Lonewulf

3rd March 2009, 07:42 AM

RobRoy

3rd March 2009, 07:51 AM

Comparing that with "faith in my teacher" seems rather silly, to my mind. The fact is, there's a reason to have faith in a teacher. The teacher had to do something before getting into their position in the first place. Is that the same of God?

According to the Mormons, yes. :D

"As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977

I'm not disputing that initially you should have faith in your teacher (i.e. not God), I was just supporting alfalfafour's statement that lack of faith in the teacher denies learning. Whatever brought that lack of faith would have had to be pretty damning in my estimation. That an instructor was wrong, or remembered something incorrectly, is only human, and should not be immediate cause to reject their learning/teaching.

Lonewulf

3rd March 2009, 07:55 AM

But at this point, "faith" becomes a rather useless, generic definition, and seems to ignore that Truethat was being rather specific in the use of the word "faith".

According to dictionary.com, these are the various definitions of the word "faith":

faith
/feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Truethat was referring to one of these (I assume 3 and/or 5), and then alfalfafour jumped in with a different definition (1 and/or 2). In a way, it switches the conversation entirely, which is why I consider it disingenuous, if that was the actual goal and not simply a mistake.

truethat

3rd March 2009, 07:56 AM

Remember that ultimately, we're talking about faith in God or the supernatural -- stuff that cannot be proven, and with a complete lack of precedent outside of anything but some people's writings.

Comparing that with "faith in my teacher" seems rather silly, to my mind. The fact is, there's a reason to have faith in a teacher. The teacher had to do something before getting into their position in the first place. Is that the same of God?

Generally my experience with most believers is that they have had a moment of heirophany, which to them can only be explained by God.

If they have faith in the connection with the "universe" "angels" and or "God" we can not deny them this experience.

To say that it has a complete lack of precedent is a bit disingenuous. History is filled to the gills with "God" experiences in all different varieties.

However, I don't think people have religion because of these experiences. Religion is generally a matter of culture and convenience. That's why I think people don't really believe in the God they say they do. He's just the nearest reach with the least amount of effort.

Ok lonewulf we both agreed on a couple of things and both used the word disingenuous at the same time.

Creepy.

RobRoy

3rd March 2009, 07:58 AM

Truethat was referring to one of these (I assume 3 and/or 5), and then alfalfafour jumped in with a different definition (1 and/or 2). In a way, it switches the conversation entirely, which is why I consider it disingenuous, if that was the actual goal and not simply a mistake.

Ahhh, I took what alfalfafour was saying differently. But I can see how you could easily interpret it that way, in which case, it is up to alfalfafour to explain.

Lonewulf

3rd March 2009, 08:02 AM

Ahhh, I took what alfalfafour was saying differently. But I can see how you could easily interpret it that way, in which case, it is up to alfalfafour to explain.

Yeah, that would probably help. ;)

jbh1970jbh

3rd March 2009, 11:19 AM

Well they aren't paying attention obviously Patsy. Sheesh everyone knows that!

There'd be no way to establish this as a fact in any sort of practical way. For me it just becomes obvious when you are talking about things that people don't know are from the bible.

Like according to Leviticus wearing a poly cotton mix is a sin right up there with Homosexuality and having sex with your daughter.

Quite funny.

From Being Jewish . com :

Clothing Mixtures:
The Commandment of Shatnez
For some reason, many people believe that it is forbidden to wear clothing that contains mixtures of different fibers.

This is incorrect.

However, the Torah does forbid us to mix linen and wool in our clothes. And wool refers specifically to the wool of sheep, lamb and rams. Other fibers, however, are absolutely permitted. Many fabrics today have mixed fibers and are not 100% any particular one material, and this is usually permitted, unless wool and linen (or wool products and linen products) are mixed.

It is easy to make claims, so I will cite a legal source, no less than the great Maimonides himself. The Rambam (Maimonides), in Hilchos Kilayim (Laws of Mixtures) Chapter 10, Law 1, says quite explicitly:

Nothing at all is forbidden in clothing mixtures except wool and linen mixed together. As it says in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:11): Do not wear shaatnez, wool and linen together.
In other words, the Rambam is saying that the Torah states explicitly that shaatnez is wool and linen together, and not any other mixture. Any other mixture in clothing is permissible.

The Torah, as we see, is rather clear that shatnez refers specifically and only to wool and linen.

***Understanding the Reasons***
The great Rabbinic Commentator Rashi says (on Genesis 26:5), quoting the Midrash, that the Law of shatnez is a chok, a decree that the King has passed for His subjects, for which we do not know the reason. A great many of the Commandments in the Torah are of that sort. We do not know precisely why pork is forbidden, for example. We do not understand how the Purification by means of a red heifer works.

Therefore, we can never truly understand the entire reason for this Mitzvah, but we can understand some of the concepts within it, at some level. Maimonides, in his Guide to the Perplexed, points out that ancient pagan priests used to wear wool and linen processed together, because they knew how to make use of it for occult practices, including idol worship and other terrible things, and therefore the Torah forbade us to use it for all time, and ordered us to stay far away from shatnez, as well as all other practices of the pagans.

truethat

3rd March 2009, 11:20 AM

Cool! Welcome! We need a Jewish Expert here! Thanks for clearing that up!

jbh1970jbh

3rd March 2009, 11:36 AM

Cool! Welcome! We need a Jewish Expert here! Thanks for clearing that up!

I'm not jewish, and I'm not an expert. I just took a few minutes to look into the matter.

Minarvia

3rd March 2009, 07:13 PM

Lonewulf

3rd March 2009, 07:20 PM

jbh1970jbh

3rd March 2009, 07:31 PM

Welcome to the Forums! Anyway, as that clearing up is interesting, the main point of the OP is that many people who profess to believe in god really, in their heart of hearts, do not. It is so easy to derail, but Truethat is mainly concerned with what Christians profess to believe and what they truly do.

I read the OP but then I started to read through the thread and got sidetracked.

Is the OP saying all people who say they believe in God are lying, most of the people, or what?

alfalfafour

3rd March 2009, 07:31 PM

But at this point, "faith" becomes a rather useless, generic definition, and seems to ignore that Truethat was being rather specific in the use of the word "faith".

I believe, that faith and belief are near synonyms with "trust" as a third and maybe even "tweener"

Don't Dictionary and Lexicon mean virtually the same thing? Do you suppose that Lexicon requires a belief in God because they are two words that nean the same thing?

I just see the difference between the useage of the word "faith" when applied in these examples:

"Faith in God"
"Faith in my teacher"
"Faith in America"
"Faith in Human Nature"
"Faith in my Bank"

Lonewulf

3rd March 2009, 07:35 PM

I believe, that faith and belief are near synonyms with "trust" as a third and maybe even "tweener"There are different varieties of "trust". Much "trust" is evidence-based, for instance. It's why I tend to lose "trust" in a friend that continually stabs me in the back and is two-faced. Manytimes it's simply, "I'll trust them until they give me a good reason not to." Some people carry it further than that, but everyone has a boundary.

Don't Dictionary and Lexicon mean virtually the same thing? Do you suppose that Lexicon requires a belief in God because they are two words that nean the same thing?What? I don't understand what you're trying to demonstrate here at all.

I just see the difference between the useage of the word "faith" when applied in these examples:

"Faith in God"
"Faith in my teacher"
"Faith in America"
"Faith in Human Nature"
"Faith in my Bank"

Ah hah.

Well, one word can have multiple definitions. For instance, Livid:

1. having a discolored, bluish appearance caused by a bruise, congestion of blood vessels, strangulation, etc., as the face, flesh, hands, or nails.
2. dull blue; dark, grayish-blue.
3. enraged; furiously angry: Willful stupidity makes me absolutely livid.
4. feeling or appearing strangulated because of strong emotion.
5. reddish or flushed.
6. deathly pale; pallid; ashen: Fear turned his cheeks livid for a moment.

If I accepted all definitions each time I used the word, you'd have a pallid, dark-bluish, reddish, enraged bruise. Doesn't quite work out that way, I think.

To my mind, "Faith in God" is completely different than "Trust based on certain presumptions". For one, that "trust" can be broken with material things; with something that doesn't exist, though, it'll never let you down. ;)

alfalfafour

3rd March 2009, 07:40 PM

To my mind, "Faith in God" is completely different than "Trust based on certain presumptions". For one, that "trust" can be broken with material things; with something that doesn't exist, though, it'll never let you down. ;)

True That.

I was just about to further the explanation.

One I trusted in all of the above. I learned that I could not do so anymore. I lost faith. Now I only believe. I have no faith.

I actually had faith in science until Al Gore and the Global Warmers beat it to death with a hockey stick.

Minarvia

3rd March 2009, 07:52 PM

I read the OP but then I started to read through the thread and got sidetracked.

Is the OP saying all people who say they believe in God are lying, most of the people, or what?

Heh, I know! :) There are now so many pages I am a bit lost myself. I think she is referring to all Christians who haven't actually read the bible of the god they profess to believe in.

truethat

3rd March 2009, 08:10 PM

Personally, I think that today Christians are pulling away from "true" belief. I'm beginning to wonder if "belief" isn't just a social indicator of "I belong with this group, we meet together and after church, go do stuff together". Today, the church seems more social and charitable than anything else; way back in the past, religion meant a lot more.

:eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:eek:

Agreed again.

That's about right Minarvia! It got side tracked by he shall not be mentioned trying to throw a hissy fit and derail derail derail.......

alfalfafour

3rd March 2009, 08:46 PM

Any chance the thread can approach the OP and actually steer to the topic instead of remarking about posts which are off topic? Or hissy fits?

I got an idea. If there is sonething you have a problem with understanding:

Ask a question, instead of assuming animousity.

truethat

3rd March 2009, 10:07 PM

Oh that's funny considering the two threads I see you posting has you picking fights with people. LOL Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn little 56 posts.

alfalfafour

3rd March 2009, 10:08 PM

Oh that's funny considering the two threads I see you posting has you picking fights with people. LOL Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn little 56 posts.

I don't pick fights, but if you draw the line in the sand, I will be there.

Do you answer a challenge, or run away with your tail between your legs?

I suggested you stay on topic. You appear evasive.

Funny, you don't look like a mind reader. How do you think you know what I am thinking?

I am a mind reader. Right now you are complaining to a moderator about a guy who said nothing offesive, but you think he did. If I manage to edit correctly, the questions are questions, and the statements are statements. Questions I write are not leading. They are sincere, not directing or insulting. I leave those questions to propagandists.

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 04:29 AM

Back to the OP then...

I'm not lying when I say,"I believe in God." I've read the Bible 4 times cover-to-cover. I've read the New Testament books multiple times, and I've studied various scriptures over the years. I'm currently working on going through it again, but this time I'm listening to it on CD.

I believed in God at the age of 5. I must of heard some scripture before that because I attended church services, but I don't remember reading or studying it everyday. If studying scripture leads you to faith, then some might never be saved. I think reading it strengthens faith that was already there.

A christian who doesn't read the scriptures is cheating themselves, and disobeying God, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are lying about being a believer.

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 04:51 AM

If studying scripture leads you to faith, then some might never be saved. I think reading it strengthens faith that was already there.

I know this might be off topic, but I can't see how someone can believe that you innately have some idea about God, while ignoring all of the Eastern countries, that show very little sign of believing in Him in the mainstream, and believe in something far far different. Or is it just that they won't be saved, either?

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 07:43 AM

I know this might be off topic, but I can't see how someone can believe that you innately have some idea about God, while ignoring all of the Eastern countries, that show very little sign of believing in Him in the mainstream, and believe in something far far different. Or is it just that they won't be saved, either?

Religion to me is different than a belief. I agree with some parts of previous posts that suggest modern Christianity is more of a social thing. As we all know, some of the "leaders" of organized religion turn out to be terrible liars and hypocrites. How can they be leading their flock in the right direction while they head off in another?

That being said, if it came down to confessing your belief or being executed, I would guess that the numbers of true Christians would be a little more evenly dispersed across all countries.

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 07:59 AM

Religion to me is different than a belief. I agree with some parts of previous posts that suggest modern Christianity is more of a social thing. As we all know, some of the "leaders" of organized religion turn out to be terrible liars and hypocrites. How can they be leading their flock in the right direction while they head off in another?

That being said, if it came down to confessing your belief or being executed, I would guess that the numbers of true Christians would be a little more evenly dispersed across all countries.

So in Japan, there would be a majority of Christians? Singapore? Those two countries have freedom of religion*. Singapore has majority Buddhists, and so does Japan. Singapore has more "non-religious" members than Christians (by about .2%, mind, so not by much).

Japan has, according to the CIA World Factbook, 84% to 96% Shinto and Buddhist believers, if Wikipedia is anything to go by (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan#Shinto)

Why is this? Surely belief in God is "innate"? Perhaps Buddhism and Amaterasu are just as true as God?

Either way, it seems like you're engaging in quite a bit of Doublethink here... everyone innately believes in God, except those that are "threatened"?

*Actually, Singapore bans Jehovah's Witnesses from spreading religious materials, and jails them if they refuse to serve in the Singaporean military, so this has a bit of a caveat. However, they do not attack you for belief in God. And why should one need to spread pamphlets for an idea that's "innate" to us?

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 08:18 AM

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 08:18 AM

A christian who doesn't read the scriptures is cheating themselves, and disobeying God, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are lying about being a believer.

This is the original question from the OP: Christians who don't read the Bible are lying about their belief. I have contended, and many others did as well, that there are many reasons why this conclusion is flawed, and that in the final analysis, there is no way to determine whether a non-Bible-reading-Christian is actually lying about their belief or not.

The best that can be said of them is they are being hypocritical, perhaps without realizing it, and should probably pause and take a look at their own beliefs and the basis for those beliefs before professing them or trying to defend them.

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 08:31 AM

This is the original question from the OP: Christians who don't read the Bible are lying about their belief. I have contended, and many others did as well, that there are many reasons why this conclusion is flawed, and that in the final analysis, there is no way to determine whether a non-Bible-reading-Christian is actually lying about their belief or not.

The best that can be said of them is they are being hypocritical, perhaps without realizing it, and should probably pause and take a look at their own beliefs and the basis for those beliefs before professing them or trying to defend them.

It would be ideal to have full understanding of the scripture before a Christian starts trying to convince someone else to believe, but it's not a requirement because no one can fully understand God while in this body. If someone questions me on a topic I'm not familiar with I will go and look into it. I believed in faith, with no evidence, and anyone else can do the same.

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 08:35 AM

It would be ideal to have full understanding of the scripture before a Christian starts trying to convince someone else to believe, but it's not a requirement because no one can fully understand God while in this body. If someone questions me on a topic I'm not familiar with I will go and look into it. I believed in faith, with no evidence, and anyone else can do the same.

Right, but this isn't the topic from the OP. Ideally, anyone who claims to be a believer would at least have read the basis of their belief system and understand the key foundational concepts. But that's not the question at hand.

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 08:39 AM

It's scriptural that the Devil has certain strongholds on earth. He vigorously defends these areas against the spread of Christianity. The disciples went out to spread the good news, they were told that if the message was rejected, to shake the dust off their feet as a testimony against them. Whole people groups can be affected by the decisions of their leaders. this doesn't mean that they, as individuals, can't find truth if they seek it.

So you honestly believe that Buddhists and Shintoists are Satanists. :boggled:

So no, you aren't lying. I don't think you're lying when you say you believe this. I do think you are something, but I'll avoid saying such a word. "Close minded" may be the most polite way to put it.

Anyways, I'm willing to step off this derail now. We can take this into another thread or PM if you wish to continue.

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 08:55 AM

Right, but this isn't the topic from the OP. Ideally, anyone who claims to be a believer would at least have read the basis of their belief system and understand the key foundational concepts. But that's not the question at hand.

The OP is more full of statements than questions. I'll give these a shot since the others might derail the main thought:

1.If you really believed that this text was from God, why haven't you read it?

I have.

2.Why haven't you committed it to memory?

I have memorized whole chapters at once. It's like anything else, if you don't keep brushing up on it, it can fade. Although, if someone says this or that is in the Bible, I can usually say yes or no. I don't have it memorized word for word but the overall message is in my memory.

3.In fact, why haven't you learned the original language and made study of this incredible book that has been given to you by the almighty Creator of the Universe and all that is Good and Holy.(?)

I will go to the original language if I have a question on a particular translation. This is not necessary for every word in the Bible. A sword is a sword. There may be deeper meaning if it is a particular type of sword that is mentioned, but the base noun needs no further explanation.

4.He sent you a tome and you asked for another to basically get you a cliff notes to that?

This is more of a statement than a question. Is he saying that I asked God to give me the New Testament after He already gave me the books of the Old?

Belz...

4th March 2009, 09:08 AM

It would be ideal to have full understanding of the scripture before a Christian starts trying to convince someone else to believe, but it's not a requirement because no one can fully understand God while in this body.

I would even suggest that God himself, were he to exist, would not understand God. What, with all the logical contradictions and all.

Belz...

4th March 2009, 09:09 AM

The OP is more full of statements than questions. I'll give these a shot since the others might derail the main thought:

1.If you really believed that this text was from God, why haven't you read it?

I have.

2.Why haven't you committed it to memory?

Are you suggesting that "real" believes MUST learn the bibble by heart ?

So it's either fanatic or a heretic ?

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 09:13 AM

So you honestly believe that Buddhists and Shintoists are Satanists. :boggled:

So no, you aren't lying. I don't think you're lying when you say you believe this. I do think you are something, but I'll avoid saying such a word. "Close minded" may be the most polite way to put it.

Anyways, I'm willing to step off this derail now. We can take this into another thread or PM if you wish to continue.

Honestly, I don't have the time for another subject. I am crrently discussing bigfoot, fallen angels/UFOs/aliens, and I'm trying to read a book on the War of Gog and Magog. On top of that I have the regular business of living.

If you start a thread on it, I have a feeling I would be the one on the defensive which translates into work for me.

Also, being "open-minded" would let my brains leak out. God says to guard yourself against evil, and test the spirits to see if they are from God.

1 John 4 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 09:15 AM

Are you suggesting that "real" believes MUST learn the bibble by heart ?

So it's either fanatic or a heretic ?

The numbered questions are the ones put forward by the OP.

My answers are below each one.

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 09:20 AM

Are you suggesting that "real" believes MUST learn the bibble by heart ?

So it's either fanatic or a heretic ?

This was a concept put forth by truethat early in the discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4334899&postcount=40). I tried to get clarification on this, but my questions were generally dodged or waved off as a lack of understanding for what the OP was trying to say. <shrug>

truethat

4th March 2009, 09:42 AM

I do believe someone like jbh1970jbh when he says he believes in God. He's obviously committed to understanding God's words.

Others on this thread, not so much. I think they are flat out lying when they say they believe in God. To them God is a sideline in their lives, not the central focus. If God is who you say God is, how could he not be the central focus? I think they lie.

It's very easy to see the distinction. Again, as much as many people want to twist it up into me saying "ALL Christians" etc etc etc, it is plain as day the difference between jbh1070jbh and other so called Christians on this thread.

Additionally while I can't agree with jbh's sentiments I will respect them because I see that he truly believes them.

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 10:10 AM

Also, being "open-minded" would let my brains leak out. God says to guard yourself against evil, and test the spirits to see if they are from God.

Certainly sounds disrespectful of other beliefs. Hell, I think I'm more respectful of Christianity than you are of Buddhism or Shintoism, which is saying a lot.

I'm trying hard not to note the irony of your saying that you'd be "letting your brains leak out" if you actually try to think outside of the bible for once... nothing like a circular argument.

I respect your lack of desire to argue the issue, though. Can't say much about that without being a hypocrite; I got studies myself.

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 10:13 AM

This was a concept put forth by truethat early in the discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4334899&postcount=40). I tried to get clarification on this, but my questions were generally dodged or waved off as a lack of understanding for what the OP was trying to say. <shrug>

Well, take the old saying; everyone wants to go to heaven, no one wants to die (which isn't entirely true, given suicide bombers and some of those knights and their families packing up for the Crusades, to wash their sins away by committing to a great battle and engaging in incredible atrocities).

However, heaven and hell are major parts of Christianity, at least, according to most Christian believers that I know of. God is a major part of the universe. This life is nothing; just a blink in the temporal landscape. 80-100 years of living, if you're optimistic, and 110-120 if you're TRULY optimistic, and arguably a bit masochistic, compared to eternity in heaven or hell? If I took such things seriously, my mind would be MUCH more on heaven than life in this world.

It's actually surprising to me that we don't have *more* fanatics than we do.

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 10:42 AM

Certainly sounds disrespectful of other beliefs. Hell, I think I'm more respectful of Christianity than you are of Buddhism or Shintoism, which is saying a lot.

I'm trying hard not to note the irony of your saying that you'd be "letting your brains leak out" if you actually try to think outside of the bible for once... nothing like a circular argument.

I respect your lack of desire to argue the issue, though. Can't say much about that without being a hypocrite; I got studies myself.

Stop tempting me with that subject! :)

I wasn't always a believer. If I would have discovered something that invalidated my belief I would look elsewhere for the truth. That hasn't happened. I haven't deeply studied other beliefs but I have looked into their main tenents. None of them drew me in for a closer look.

jbh1970jbh

4th March 2009, 10:44 AM

Stop tempting me with that subject! :)

I wasn't always a believer. If I would have discovered something that invalidated my belief I would look elsewhere for the truth. That hasn't happened. I haven't deeply studied other beliefs but I have looked into their main tenents. None of them drew me in for a closer look.

That is to say, "They failed the test".

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 10:48 AM

That's fine. Christianity didn't draw me in with anything, even after I deeply examined it. It failed "the test" big time. However, I don't claim that you're secretly a Satanist.

I find it hard to not get drawn into this kind of debate myself, as you can see... it's just rather a sore point with me.

truethat

4th March 2009, 10:54 AM

Well, take the old saying; everyone wants to go to heaven, no one wants to die (which isn't entirely true, given suicide bombers and some of those knights and their families packing up for the Crusades, to wash their sins away by committing to a great battle and engaging in incredible atrocities).

However, heaven and hell are major parts of Christianity, at least, according to most Christian believers that I know of. God is a major part of the universe. This life is nothing; just a blink in the temporal landscape. 80-100 years of living, if you're optimistic, and 110-120 if you're TRULY optimistic, and arguably a bit masochistic, compared to eternity in heaven or hell? If I took such things seriously, my mind would be MUCH more on heaven than life in this world.

It's actually surprising to me that we don't have *more* fanatics than we do.
Exactly my point. SAYING you believe in God, and actually believing in this God that you purport is the central focus of life and all that is known and unknown, are two different things.

By way of clarification I have several times given the option of "Then God is not who you say he is."

Either you don't really believe your own description of God, or you don't believe in God. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

As Lonewulf pointed out, this life is a mere blip on the radar of the promise of God's eternal plan joined with God in his awesomness, according to the bible, so as the OP quite clearly stated, why are people so preoccupied with the here and now and worried about dying.

Very obviously they don't believe what they say they do. In discussions between atheists and believers it became obvious to me, that at the heart of the matter is really not whether or not God exists, but the fact that the atheist knows full well that the supposed believer is lying through his ever loving teeth about his supposed "faith" and understanding of God.

This is evidenced by the fact that most of them don't read the bible. But that is not the only reason.

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 11:01 AM

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 11:37 AM

Either you're worried about it, or you don't really believe it. Those are the only two options, to my mind.

Either that, or you just haven't thought about "infinity" very much.

Exactly. We could also add to the list that you're lazy, or there are other concerns that take precedence (the bullets tearing up your country, famine killing the people, etc.). We might even add that you can't read (some areas of Africa have less than 50% literacy or worse, some parts of heavily Catholic South America hover around only 80%).

Thus, the lack of Bible reading does not necessitate a lack of belief in Hell, Heaven, God, etc. for all non-Bible reading Christians. There is a slew of mitigating circumstances that aren't being address, or are being blatantly overlooked, to make the conclusion fit.

truethat

4th March 2009, 11:50 AM

I remember when I went to a private catholic high school; we were sent into Mass several times (usually on special occasions). It was a solemn and long (and boring) ritual, at least to my mind at the time.

I once overheard some of the students talking, and they joked that they were "bound for hell anyways". I remember thinking, do they really think that? It makes me think of three possibilities:

1) They think that they're going to hell, and brush it off as "no big deal", as eternal torment (as we were taught to believe it) was nothing to be concerned about.

2) They didn't really believe in Hell or the whole Catholic mythology they're more or less forced into, or have SOME kind of doubts somewhere.

3) They were just "joking around", and actually believe that they're going to Heaven and not Hell.

(or option 4: They're just frikkin' teenagers and stop thinking about it too much!)

Still, it's downright weird to hear stuff like that. It's a lot like someone joking about being a genocidal maniac. Hell is it! It's an eternity of punishment, with little to no Get Out of Hell Free card (not since Jesus died and freed some peeps). It's eternity. I mean, it's ETERNITY. The time it took from the beginning of this universe, to the time when it will "end" (however that may occur, I believe from entropy finally winning and the universe growing too cold), is just a blip in time compared to eternity. It's that, times a googolplex, times another googolplex, times another googolplex, on and on infinitely!

Either you're worried about it, or you don't really believe it. Those are the only two options, to my mind.

Either that, or you just haven't thought about "infinity" very much.
Agreed. This is the point of the entire thread.

I don't think that I am the first person who has noticed this. I believe many atheists get frustrated with supposed believers because they are full of **** and they know it. The reason, in my opinion, that these debates go round and round, is because the atheist doesn't call the believer on their lie.

This is what this thread is attempting to bring to the forefront of discussion. We are expected to take seriously a believers claim that they believe God wants X or X is a sin. I think that we need not only to stop honoring their "religious beliefs" but to hold them accountable to their own beliefs. You don't get any respect from me, if you don't follow your own beliefs. Nuff said.

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 12:19 PM

I think that we need not only to stop honoring their "religious beliefs" but to hold them accountable to their own beliefs. You don't get any respect from me, if you don't follow your own beliefs. Nuff said.

Such a lovely set of contradictions. Well done! :bigclap

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 12:26 PM

Exactly. We could also add to the list that you're lazy,
We could, but I'm pretty sure I could put in that extra effort if looking at an eternity of being able to be lazy (or whatever).

or there are other concerns that take precedence (the bullets tearing up your country, famine killing the people, etc.).Who cares? Heaven is better than this life anyways. Christians focusing on the material world reminds me of Zen Buddhists of doing the same; "Some illusions are more convincing than others..."

We might even add that you can't read (some areas of Africa have less than 50% literacy or worse, some parts of heavily Catholic South America hover around only 80%).Er, I'm not the one focusing on bible reading here. I'm not Truethat. I'm talking about people joking about going to hell, and seeming to believe that they are, and not caring.

Thus, the lack of Bible reading does not necessitate a lack of belief in Hell, Heaven, God, etc. for all non-Bible reading Christians. There is a slew of mitigating circumstances that aren't being address, or are being blatantly overlooked, to make the conclusion fit.
What about the mitigating circumstance that, you know, eternity of rewards > a lifetime a pain?

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 12:49 PM

We could, but I'm pretty sure I could put in that extra effort if looking at an eternity of being able to be lazy (or whatever).

Depends on your world view though, doesn't it. If the world isn't ending tomorrow, then why not put it off at least that far. Plenty of time later to invest yourself in such concerns, when the current concerns of food, clothing and shelter are immediate.

Who cares? Heaven is better than this life anyways. Christians focusing on the material world reminds me of Zen Buddhists of doing the same; "Some illusions are more convincing than others..."

Oh, there's no list of claims in this regard. Test, work to be done, choices to be made, etc. ad nauseum. We could go on. Most Christians regard suicide as a sin, based on the belief that life is a gift, and not one to be thrown away. So much so that some flavors of Christianity won't let you into the Big Prom Dance in the Sky if you commit suicide.

Er, I'm not the one focusing on bible reading here. I'm not Truethat. I'm talking about people joking about going to hell, and seeming to believe that they are, and not caring.

My pardon, I thought you were defending the OP with your example, not setting up your own. I was going back to the OP with that, and not taking your arguments on their own merit.

What about the mitigating circumstance that, you know, eternity of rewards > a lifetime a pain?

Well that's the crux, isn't it? What's the requirement via a particular slice of Christianity? Does God actually make the statement that His Christian believers must read the Bible in order to make it to their "eternity of rewards"? Or is their belief, blind or not, enough to get them through the Pearly Gates? Is it enough that they know, roughly, what the Bible says, and/or what Jesus taught?

truethat

4th March 2009, 01:22 PM

Laziness to me is a ridiculous excuse if you believe in God as you describe God. If God is the alpha and omega, the answer to the great mysteries in life..........laziness seems like a disingenuous answer.

Likewise "illiteracy in Africa" is a bit of a retarded excuse to offer up as some sort of justificaton.

More of the famous derail. Lets just start with the millions of Christians living in the US who have plenty of time to yap online. The fact that these Christians have so much to say about the authority of a book they've never read, is pretty inauthentic.

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 01:45 PM

Laziness to me is a ridiculous excuse if you believe in God as you describe God. If God is the alpha and omega, the answer to the great mysteries in life..........laziness seems like a disingenuous answer.

As I describe? Again, we see that you're not paying attention. Try to keep your facts straight when making such claims.

I've already addressed this to you in the past and you disregarded it then as you have now. Laziness is part of the human condition, and should not be overlooked when trying to account for human behavior.

Likewise "illiteracy in Africa" is a bit of a retarded excuse to offer up as some sort of justificaton.

Yes, yes. When telling all those African Christians that they are lying about their belief in God because they haven't read the Bible, do make certain to tell them that their excuse of illiteracy is "a retarded excuse". I'm sure they'll understand.

More of the famous derail.

How is it a derail when I'm discussing specifically the OP?

Lets just start with the millions of Christians living in the US who have plenty of time to yap online. The fact that these Christians have so much to say about the authority of a book they've never read, is pretty inauthentic.

I'm not certain you want to take it to that point. You have Christians, living in the US, who are online, and talk about the Bible, but haven't read it? With that fine of a line on criteria, you're going to have to show me some kind of evidence to support your claim in this regard. It would seem that those Christians who feel the need to "yap online" about the Bible would likely have read it.

On the other hand, if we're just talking US Christians in general, I have far more sympathy in this regard. I think we would find that at least half of all Christians don't regularly read the Bible.

ETA: Yeppers, Gallup ran a poll in 2000 to that effect: Six in Ten Americans Read Bible at Least Occasionally (http://www.gallup.com/poll/2416/Six-Ten-Americans-Read-Bible-Least-Occasionally.aspx). I'm actually surprised the numbers are as high as Gallup is stating.

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 01:52 PM

I'm not certain you want to take it to that point. You have Christians, living in the US, who are online, and talk about the Bible, but haven't read it? With that fine of a line on criteria, you're going to have to show me some kind of evidence to support your claim in this regard. It would seem that those Christians who feel the need to "yap online" about the Bible would likely have read it.Considering how many stutter when asked to name all 10 commandments on the spot (usually when they're arguing to have it displayed in a public place), I'm skeptical of your assumption.

Also, "read" as in, from cover to cover?

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 02:00 PM

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 02:05 PM

Even then, how do you explain so many people selectively picking out of Leviticus, while ignoring almost all of the other passages form the same source?

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 02:19 PM

Even then, how do you explain so many people selectively picking out of Leviticus, while ignoring almost all of the other passages form the same source?

I assume you're talking about the argument regarding homosexuality, versus the arguments regarding selling your daughter for a fair price, correct?

Come now, LW, there are a slew of reasons for this that don't require non-reading to explain it away. You begin with the most obvious, they "ignore" those sections that don't meet with their worldview. They rationalize it in any number of ways.

Minarvia

4th March 2009, 02:42 PM

You make many good points, RobRoy, but I have a question about one. You say that Christians use "their worldview." Do you think they realize that, if their god exists, he/she may not give a flip about "their worldview?" Do you think they even consider that god would care when he allegedly gave them a book of his rules? Why would any believer really think that, if god is beyond human understand, as some claim, that their own opinions matter at all to a god who is in control of their eternal fate?

I realize I may be rambling a bit, but you have a way of making sense of things even if I don't always agree with you on them. I'm genuinely interested in what you think of what I am asking.

I think this ties in with the OP because to me all these questions fall into the category of whether the professed believe REALLY believes. I'm not saying that I think all non-bible readers are liars, but I do believe a good number are, whether or not they realize it.

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 03:05 PM

You make many good points, RobRoy, but I have a question about one. You say that Christians use "their worldview." Do you think they realize that, if their god exists, he/she may not give a flip about "their worldview?"

Yikes, this one is pretty tricky! :jaw-dropp I’ve give you my best shot.

Based on the Christians of whom we are speaking above, I think it runs the gamut. I think there are those who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing according to God (think the LDS Church members and California Prop 8), and there are also those who proceed from the false assumption that their actions are pre-approved by God , without consideration one way or the other of what God might actually want.

Do you think they even consider that god would care when he allegedly gave them a book of his rules?

Again, same gamut. There are those who do consider what God is telling them, or what She (gender choice for sake of brevity) is trying to tell them. There are others who are certain they are right, and never consider what Her will would be. These latter don’t feel the need to look further for justification.

Why would any believer really think that, if god is beyond human understand, as some claim, that their own opinions matter at all to a god who is in control of their eternal fate?

Flip it back at you. Why do you think that some humans believe they can interpret God’s message, if She’s ever deigned to send one?

I think there's a whole slew of reasons for these claims, running from pure delusion, all the way through pure belief, and stopping along the road for ego-centric behavior along the way.

I realize I may be rambling a bit, but you have a way of making sense of things even if I don't always agree with you on them. I'm genuinely interested in what you think of what I am asking.

Thank you Minarvia. As LW noted earlier, flattery will get you everywhere! ;)

I think this ties in with the OP because to me all these questions fall into the category of whether the professed believe REALLY believes. I'm not saying that I think all non-bible readers are liars, but I do believe a good number are, whether or not they realize it.

Yes, yes. We don’t want to be accused of derailing, now do we? ;)

I think you and I are closer than you think on this issue. I too think there are some folk who are lying about their belief, for any number of reasons, social pressure being chief amongst those reasons, along with fear (of death, the unknown, chaos in general, etc.) which keeps them in check. In these cases, as you point out, they may not be aware this is what they’re doing, but they are doing it. The other side of the coin are those, as I and others have pointed out, who have any number of reasons for their inconsistent behavior.

Humans have never been completely consistent, regardless of the logic and evidence provided them.

truethat

4th March 2009, 03:32 PM

You make many good points, RobRoy, but I have a question about one. You say that Christians use "their worldview." Do you think they realize that, if their god exists, he/she may not give a flip about "their worldview?" Do you think they even consider that god would care when he allegedly gave them a book of his rules? Why would any believer really think that, if god is beyond human understand, as some claim, that their own opinions matter at all to a god who is in control of their eternal fate?

I realize I may be rambling a bit, but you have a way of making sense of things even if I don't always agree with you on them. I'm genuinely interested in what you think of what I am asking.

I think this ties in with the OP because to me all these questions fall into the category f whether the professed believe REALLY believes. I'm not saying that I think all non-bible readers are liars, but I do believe a good number are, whether or not they realize it.

I agree. Just so we're clear here, and to avoid the famous derailing tactics, I've made it pretty clear several times that I'm not talking about a person with a humble sense of faith that is not well read. Rather I'm talking about outspoken Christians who feel it is their right, no duty, to attempt to reign the rest of the world in under their professed God's rules.

These people when pressed don't know too much about the rules they want the rest of us to follow.

The debates on this topic seem to wind down to discussing whether God actually exists which is not really in my opinion the issue at hand. The issue is, does the person actually believe what they are defending. If they haven't even read the bible, and yes that means cover to cover, I find it very hard to believe that they believe.

I don't know why this is so confusing for some posters. Rob Roy seems to want to pretend I'm saying something else so he can argue that point instead.

If you want the rest of the public to take your faith seriously, perhaps you ought to yourself first........

RobRoy

4th March 2009, 03:37 PM

[/B]I don't know why this is so confusing for some posters. Rob Roy seems to want to pretend I'm saying something else so he can argue that point instead.

Your lies are getting pretty tiring. Perhaps you should try a new tactic lest you pigeon-hole yourself.

truethat

4th March 2009, 03:59 PM

Really? Look at your recent post. You are discussing entirely different off topic points.

Lets examine the use of the word "SHE" as God. Please show me any Christian group that refers to God as SHE. Perhaps I'm not informed.

Additionally what do the illiteracy rates of Africans have to do with the topic at hand except as a form of extreme justification and loopholing.

If you would like to discuss the topic at hand, that would be, the idea that people are lying about their faith, which after 17 pages of screaching like a chicken, you've had to finally concede.

So please explain what the "SHE GOD" and "Illiterate Africans" have to do with this topic, if you are not attempting to discuss something else? :words::words:

Also, ignoring everything, doesn't make it not there for others to read.

The evidence is quite clear that many professed Christians are total liars about their faith. And I would believe that some are deliberate liars because it can be used as a "moral" tool to justify oppression.

truethat

4th March 2009, 04:14 PM

Considering how many stutter when asked to name all 10 commandments on the spot (usually when they're arguing to have it displayed in a public place), I'm skeptical of your assumption.

Also, "read" as in, from cover to cover?

We're talking about truethat's Christians who come online to "yap" about the Bible, correct?

I wouldn't think that you could hear stuttering online? :D
That's the assumption I've been going with based on the OP and the correlation made regarding Jews and the Torah and Muslims and the Qur’an.

Perhaps the introduction, end-notes and index could be left out, but I had thought we were talking from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

You didn't answer the question. You made a joke. Then you brought up Jews and Muslims.

If you are seriously trying to discuss the topic at hand, then answer why so many Christians don't know all the ten commandments?

And then explain how you expect us to believe they really believe that these are rules directly from the mind of God (no hair splitting on that one) if they don't even know what they are.

If they don't know, how can we believe that they believe in this supposed God?

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 05:35 PM

I assume you're talking about the argument regarding homosexuality, versus the arguments regarding selling your daughter for a fair price, correct?

Come now, LW, there are a slew of reasons for this that don't require non-reading to explain it away. You begin with the most obvious, they "ignore" those sections that don't meet with their worldview. They rationalize it in any number of ways.

I know we'll probably disagree on this point, but I don't see much effective difference between "reads only selections and not the whole thing" and "ignores/discriminates in what passages one actually follows, after asserting that it's a guidebook to follow". Can one really prove that it's one, and not the other?

kurious_kathy

4th March 2009, 06:19 PM

You didn't answer the question. You made a joke. Then you brought up Jews and Muslims.

If you are seriously trying to discuss the topic at hand, then answer why so many Christians don't know all the ten commandments?

And then explain how you expect us to believe they really believe that these are rules directly from the mind of God (no hair splitting on that one) if they don't even know what they are.

If they don't know, how can we believe that they believe in this supposed God?

I think most every Christian knows the 10 commandments even if they have trouble memorizing and repeating all of them. Of course especially here is the US Satan has worked really hard at trying to get rid of them.
On another note is it true the Catholic church changed one of them to something else? I heard Ken Hovind say this on one of his teachings recently and I had never heard this before, that the Roman Catholic church had changed the commandemnt on thou shalt not worship any graven images. And see what they have done to Mary she is not a God or co redemptrous? That is a big no no!

Lonewulf

4th March 2009, 06:26 PM

I think most every Christian knows the 10 commandments even if they have trouble memorizing and repeating all of them. Of course especially here is the US Satan has worked really hard at trying to get rid of them.Once more "Satandidit". If it's good, "Goddidit". It must be so easy to live in a world that is, essentially, one big false dichotomy.

On another note is it true the Catholic church changed one of them to something else? I heard Ken Hovind say this on one of his teachings recently and I had never heard this before, that the Roman Catholic church had changed the commandemnt on thou shalt not worship any graven images. And see what they have done to Mary she is not a God or co redemptrous? That is a big no no!

Yeap.

Roman Catholic 10 commandments:

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/romancatholic-tencommandments.html

Also see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ten_commandments#Roman_Catholic_and_Lutheran_C hristianity

joobz

4th March 2009, 07:12 PM

truethat

4th March 2009, 07:22 PM

Belz...

5th March 2009, 04:14 AM

I do believe someone like jbh1970jbh when he says he believes in God. He's obviously committed to understanding God's words.

I don't see how that's relevant. There are several ways to believe, several interpretations and levels of faith. Most people actually don't put much thought into it.

Lonewulf

5th March 2009, 04:16 AM

P.S. Just found out I was accepted into Union Theological Seminary! Woot Woot!

Erm, the what?

RobRoy

5th March 2009, 08:19 AM

Really? Look at your recent post. You are discussing entirely different off topic points.

I was asked a specific set of questions by Minarvia and responded. Thread sway is a natural occurance during any discussion.

Lets examine the use of the word "SHE" as God. Please show me any Christian group that refers to God as SHE. Perhaps I'm not informed.

I'm not a Christian, so what's your point? I explained why I picked the pronoun She (for berevity) when Minarvia was making the he/she usage.

Additionally what do the illiteracy rates of Africans have to do with the topic at hand except as a form of extreme justification and loopholing.

Your conclusion was that Christians who haven't read the Bible are lying about their belief. Among the myriad of reasons already provided to you by myself and others this was another reason to not necessarily doubt their belief based on their lack of having read the Bible.

Of course, you've since then moved the goalposts once more, so that now we're only talking about online Christians who haven't read the Bible. I've addressed that with Lonewulf above.

If you would like to discuss the topic at hand, that would be, the idea that people are lying about their faith, which after 17 pages of screaching like a chicken, you've had to finally concede.

I wasn't aware the chicken's screached. Do go on.

Of course, this is another lovely example of where you don't pay attention and outright lie in order to make your case. A new tactic for you would be to tell the truth. A further new tactic would be for you to answer questions addressed to you. Lies don't seem to have won you much.

So please explain what the "SHE GOD" and "Illiterate Africans" have to do with this topic, if you are not attempting to discuss something else?

Already addressed.

Also, ignoring everything, doesn't make it not there for others to read.

You would know that best, wouldn't you.

The evidence is quite clear that many professed Christians are total liars about their faith. And I would believe that some are deliberate liars because it can be used as a "moral" tool to justify oppression.

Indeed, there are. But they are not necessarily those who haven't read the Bible.

You didn't answer the question. You made a joke. Then you brought up Jews and Muslims.

You have taken me out of context proving again the liar that you are. It's clear that I addressed the question, and I believe to LW's satisfaction.

If you are seriously trying to discuss the topic at hand, then answer why so many Christians don't know all the ten commandments?

Certainly, right you define "so many" and show me your proof for this claim. Otherwise this is just another of your lies.

And then explain how you expect us to believe they really believe that these are rules directly from the mind of God (no hair splitting on that one) if they don't even know what they are.

Already addressed repeatedly.

If they don't know, how can we believe that they believe in this supposed God?

The question is not so much how can we believe them, but rather why we shouldn't believe them. You've yet to show a convincing argument, let alone any evidence to support it.

I know we'll probably disagree on this point, but I don't see much effective difference between "reads only selections and not the whole thing" and "ignores/discriminates in what passages one actually follows, after asserting that it's a guidebook to follow". Can one really prove that it's one, and not the other?

Sorry, did I make this claim? What was it in regard to? Not trying to dodge here, I just don't recall what we were arguing for this particular set of statements that you're quoting.

I don't see how that's relevant. There are several ways to believe, several interpretations and levels of faith. Most people actually don't put much thought into it.

Exactly. We can't call someone a liar simply because their actions don't fit a set of arbitrary requirements that may or may not apply to their chosen interpretation and level of faith.

Erm, the what?

You didn't know that truethat is pursuing a degree in theology? We discussed it some time back, and I defended her pursuit against Plumjam at that time.

Minarvia

5th March 2009, 08:26 AM

Yikes, this one is pretty tricky! :jaw-dropp I’ve give you my best shot.

Based on the Christians of whom we are speaking above, I think it runs the gamut. I think there are those who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing according to God (think the LDS Church members and California Prop 8), and there are also those who proceed from the false assumption that their actions are pre-approved by God , without consideration one way or the other of what God might actually want.

You're right, imo. I have no doubt there are many sincere believers who think that their actions are pre-approved by god. Come to think of it, I think I met some during my college years. I didn't have any reason to doubt their faith.

Again, same gamut. There are those who do consider what God is telling them, or what She (gender choice for sake of brevity) is trying to tell them. There are others who are certain they are right, and never consider what Her will would be. These latter don’t feel the need to look further for justification.

Yes, shame that. I always think that continuous learning can only benefit you.

Flip it back at you. Why do you think that some humans believe they can interpret God’s message, if She’s ever deigned to send one?

I really have no idea, for a "sane" person, for lack of a better word. Certainly a truly humble one wouldn't really believe he/she can claim to know the mind of god? But perhaps, such as in the case of monks, they were so conditioned as children to believe what their elders told them that perhaps as adults they themselves felt qualified to do so. As of today, I think most just want to use that claim to further their own ends. Not all, certainly, but when I see televangelists, for example, I just see dollar signs above their heads.

I think there's a whole slew of reasons for these claims, running from pure delusion, all the way through pure belief, and stopping along the road for ego-centric behavior along the way.

Thank you Minarvia. As LW noted earlier, flattery will get you everywhere!

;)

Yes, yes. We don’t want to be accused of derailing, now do we? ;)

I think you and I are closer than you think on this issue. I too think there are some folk who are lying about their belief, for any number of reasons, social pressure being chief amongst those reasons, along with fear (of death, the unknown, chaos in general, etc.) which keeps them in check. In these cases, as you point out, they may not be aware this is what they’re doing, but they are doing it. The other side of the coin are those, as I and others have pointed out, who have any number of reasons for their inconsistent behavior.

Humans have never been completely consistent, regardless of the logic and evidence provided them.

That is certainly true. Humans are so diverse that even to one who believes, I'm sure signal gets lost in all the noise sometimes.

I've got the feeling that this post will look weird. I should see if I can use the multi-quote feature. I see others do it but I've never tried it myself.

Well, it does look wrong, but I think you can easily sort out your remarks from mine!

Lonewulf

5th March 2009, 08:27 AM

Sorry, did I make this claim? What was it in regard to? Not trying to dodge here, I just don't recall what we were arguing for this particular set of statements that you're quoting.I'm sort of lost as well. :x

I'm just saying, that it seems that quite a few Christians don't seem to follow their own tenets, or ignore anything that contradicts their view even after telling others what they should read as a guidebook.

Exactly. We can't call someone a liar simply because their actions don't fit a set of arbitrary requirements that may or may not apply to their chosen interpretation and level of faith.The problem is, the reason it's "arbitrary" is because it's an attempt at consistency.

For an easy example, if one bashes homosexuals thanks to one passage in Leviticus, yet ignores every other single other passage in Leviticus and the Old Testament, it's being grossly logically inconsistent, and thus the claimant is criticized as being disingenuous, or at least ignorant, at best.

As for the people who go outside of the Bible or take it all, from beginning to end, as figurative language and not prescriptive (even when it obviously is), then one can't touch them. But then, if they try to convert other people, it becomes an issue if "why should I believe you word?"

Of course, there are those that don't try to convert and have their own views, and don't follow the Bible as a guidebook. Them, I don't care about as much, and more power to 'em.

You didn't know that truethat is pursuing a degree in theology? We discussed it some time back, and I defended her pursuit against Plumjam at that time.

No, I didn't, I must have missed it altogether. :boggled:

Well, more power to 'er, I guess.

Minarvia

5th March 2009, 08:31 AM

I think most every Christian knows the 10 commandments even if they have trouble memorizing and repeating all of them. Of course especially here is the US Satan has worked really hard at trying to get rid of them.

But doesn't that make you think that Satan is just plain weak? Is that all he can do is make people forget some rules? And god just sits around and lets him? This all sounds just so silly. If these entities really exist it sounds like they are just kids playing a silly little game.

kuriouskathy, do you really believe this about Christians knowing the 10 commandments? And if they do, why do they constantly break them willy-nilly? Satandidit? Free will? Or what? :confused: A god who WANTS them to have eternal torment? :eye-poppi

Minarvia

5th March 2009, 08:35 AM

Really? Look at your recent post. You are discussing entirely different off topic points.

Lets examine the use of the word "SHE" as God. Please show me any Christian group that refers to God as SHE. Perhaps I'm not informed.

So please explain what the "SHE GOD" and "Illiterate Africans" have to do with this topic, if you are not attempting to discuss something else? :words::words:

The evidence is quite clear that many professed Christians are total liars about their faith. And I would believe that some are deliberate liars because it can be used as a "moral" tool to justify oppression.

For the first part, to be fair, that was me, not RobRoy. I said he/she in my post to him because I was not only referring to Christians but all those who believe in some sort of supreme entity and many believe in feminine ones as well.

As for the last part of your post, that is all too true, I think, in some very tragic ways. Using religion to "control the masses" is a very horrid thing to do but, unfortunately, very effective in many cases. I think of invaders conquering a nation and wiping its history out and controlling the people in just that way. :(

BTW, congrats on your acceptance to the Theological Seminary!

Edit - I see RobRoy beat me to it about the he/she part.

Minarvia

5th March 2009, 08:45 AM

Well you know 10 things are hard to remember. I know a lot of people can't remember all the names of the seven dwarfs.

And since basically these Christians treat their religion the same way they treat Snow White, a story that someone read them when they were a kid, they saw a movie about it and once a year went to Disneyland so they could buy stuff, plus decorate their house with things from the story, we can't really blame them now, can we?

That's actually quite funny to me this morning. When I was Catholic, I had no trouble with the Commandments or the Rosary. None at all. And to this day when I attend a Mass for a wedding or funeral I still can do all the recitations properly. And I haven't been a believer for over 20 years now.
Why current believers would have such trouble is a bit odd to me. Unless they are what are called the "C and E crowd" of their church. (Christmas and Easter) or the "W and F Crowd" (Weddings and funerals).

I just ticked off the 7 Dwarves off on my fingers and got them all. Hurray for not being fuzzy-brained early in the day for once! :)

RobRoy

5th March 2009, 08:54 AM

I'm sort of lost as well. :x

No worries then. Happens to the best of us! :D

I'm just saying, that it seems that quite a few Christians don't seem to follow their own tenets, or ignore anything that contradicts their view even after telling others what they should read as a guidebook.

On this I would agree. This makes them hypocrites (realized or not) regarding their faith, or what their faith preaches-teaches. But it doesn't negate their faith, or make them liars about their stated faith.

The problem is, the reason it's "arbitrary" is because it's an attempt at consistency.

Except that in this case I'm referencing the OP. The arbitrary requirement for truth regarding God-belief is that proclaimed Christians (who now are apparently online and "yap") read the Bible. So those that do all these things we should consider to be lying about their God-belief. Those concepts are not all-inclusive by any means; something truethat is incapable of grasping. ;)

No, I didn't, I must have missed it altogether. :boggled:

Well, more power to 'er, I guess.

It was easy to miss (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4351112&postcount=248).

RobRoy

5th March 2009, 09:04 AM

I really have no idea, for a "sane" person, for lack of a better word. Certainly a truly humble one wouldn't really believe he/she can claim to know the mind of god? But perhaps, such as in the case of monks, they were so conditioned as children to believe what their elders told them that perhaps as adults they themselves felt qualified to do so. As of today, I think most just want to use that claim to further their own ends. Not all, certainly, but when I see televangelists, for example, I just see dollar signs above their heads.

I agree. At a certain point, it's clear that an expensive suit, nice car, luxury acomodations and silver spoons are the driving force more so than preaching the "true" word. Ego is also a driving factor in someone claiming to know what is and isn't true. It's part of why I prefer skeptics to believers. A skeptic demands proof for statements, and in return offers evidence supported by logical argumentation.

That is certainly true. Humans are so diverse that even to one who believes, I'm sure signal gets lost in all the noise sometimes.

Exactly. See, we do agree on this! ;)

I've got the feeling that this post will look weird. I should see if I can use the multi-quote feature. I see others do it but I've never tried it myself.

Well, it does look wrong, but I think you can easily sort out your remarks from mine!

You have to insert the quote tags in order to break up the post. You place the word "quote" inside a set of brackets [] at the begining of the section and then a "/quote" inside the brackets [] at the end. You can also highlight the text, and then click the quote icon http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/editor/quote.gif, and it will insert the tags for you.

truethat

5th March 2009, 09:31 AM

I think the difference of opinion is on the idea of hypocrisy and lying. I don't believe this is mere hypocrisy for reasons I have stated quite a few times. To me, it is inconceivable that someone really believes that God is who they say he is, and then they slack off. My opinion is that many of these supposed Christians, don't really believe in God at all. And I think somewhere inside they know it.

Belz...

6th March 2009, 04:17 AM

Minarvia

6th March 2009, 12:32 PM

I agree. At a certain point, it's clear that an expensive suit, nice car, luxury acomodations and silver spoons are the driving force more so than preaching the "true" word. Ego is also a driving factor in someone claiming to know what is and isn't true. It's part of why I prefer skeptics to believers. A skeptic demands proof for statements, and in return offers evidence supported by logical argumentation.

Me, too. I can't accept a doe-eyed believer any more than a hardened cynic. But a true, healthy skeptical approach can get us further to the truth, imo. I'm trying out the quote thing you explained to me and I'll have to see if I do it right!

Exactly. See, we do agree on this! ;)

I guess we are closer to like-mindedness about some of this than I had thought. I, for one, am really enjoying this thread and trying to get my feet wet, so to speak. I'm not nearly as articulate as most on this board and not even close to being as educated on many of the finer points but I'm trying to learn.

You have to insert the quote tags in order to break up the post. You place the word "quote" inside a set of brackets [] at the begining of the section and then a "/quote" inside the brackets [] at the end. You can also highlight the text, and then click the quote icon http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/editor/quote.gif, and it will insert the tags for you.

Umkay...I'll see if this worked. Time to hit the "submit reply button." :)

Edit - argh!!! Well, it mostly worked!

Minarvia

6th March 2009, 12:36 PM

Well, truethat, people are like that. They very often slack off on their convictions, but pay them at least lip service. It's not that they're dishonest. It's just that, like many, many human beings, they're simply lazy.

True, I think many people are indeed lazy on certain things. I don't want to sound too hard-headed about this, but when it comes to the OP and true belief, I don't think I would be lazy about trying to kiss a god's butt to avoid eternal torment. I think I would enter a nunnery or some such place and pray my butt off and work my fingers to the proverbial bone to avoid such a fate. Many of the Catholic saints did. I don't question their sincere belief for a moment.

As for lazy "believers," I don't know. I guess they kind of believe. Or they must be extremely confident that their god is incredibly forgiving. But if any gods exist, and understanding them is outside of our ability, as I've heard claimed, then why take the chance? Who can prove the god is necessarily good? A few bible stories would be enough to shatter that image. At least for me.

kurious_kathy

6th March 2009, 01:55 PM

how has he done that? By making it difficult to remember 10 things?
One thing is the probelm with the ACLU they keep trying to remove them. I support the ACLJ in their efforts to fight the ACLU. God is a big part of our history as a nation and everytime we turn around some atheist is trying to get rid of the evidence.

Lonewulf

6th March 2009, 01:56 PM

One thing is the probelm with the ACLU they keep trying to remove them.From a public building in a secular country.

God is a big part of our history as a nation and everytime we turn around some atheist is trying to get rid of the evidece.

No, diversity is a big part of our history as a nation.

RobRoy

6th March 2009, 02:04 PM

Me, too. I can't accept a doe-eyed believer any more than a hardened cynic. But a true, healthy skeptical approach can get us further to the truth, imo.

Agreed!

I guess we are closer to like-mindedness about some of this than I had thought. I, for one, am really enjoying this thread and trying to get my feet wet, so to speak. I'm not nearly as articulate as most on this board and not even close to being as educated on many of the finer points but I'm trying to learn.

You're doing great. You have the right mindset, you have your own opinions, but you're willing to learn from others, and if you happen to be presented with evidence that suggests something new, you're not above including it. That's exactly what a skeptic is supposed to do. :bigclap

Umkay...I'll see if this worked. Time to hit the "submit reply button." :)

Almost. I think you double quoted the text! :D Just check the tags to make certain there is only one open bracket [] and one closed bracket [/], with the word "quote" inside.

True, I think many people are indeed lazy on certain things. I don't want to sound too hard-headed about this, but when it comes to the OP and true belief, I don't think I would be lazy about trying to kiss a god's butt to avoid eternal torment. I think I would enter a nunnery or some such place and pray my butt off and work my fingers to the proverbial bone to avoid such a fate. Many of the Catholic saints did. I don't question their sincere belief for a moment.

So question on the above: does involvement in the secular world reduce the level of sincere belief?

As for lazy "believers," I don't know. I guess they kind of believe. Or they must be extremely confident that their god is incredibly forgiving. But if any gods exist, and understanding them is outside of our ability, as I've heard claimed, then why take the chance? Who can prove the god is necessarily good? A few bible stories would be enough to shatter that image. At least for me.

It depends on your slice of Christian religion though. If your preacher tells you that you can't just thump the Bible to be saved, but must actually crack the spine, and then you don't, then I would call your belief in that religion into question, and I might go so far as to call your belief in God into question. Calling you a liar might be a bit much, but to each their own. However, if your particular flavor favors the fun-filled function of prayer for enlightenment over sitting down with the Good Book, then it's arrogant presumption to suggest that individual is lying about their belief in God(s).

kurious_kathy

7th March 2009, 03:27 AM

But doesn't that make you think that Satan is just plain weak? Is that all he can do is make people forget some rules? And god just sits around and lets him? This all sounds just so silly. If these entities really exist it sounds like they are just kids playing a silly little game.

kuriouskathy, do you really believe this about Christians knowing the 10 commandments? And if they do, why do they constantly break them willy-nilly? Satandidit? Free will? Or what? :confused: A god who WANTS them to have eternal torment? :eye-poppi

Well I see it this way,"Sin is every mans struggle." True born again spirit filled people have been given power over their sin but sometimes we still mess up as believers. The dfference to me is if we are responding to the Holy Spirit or not. We cannot keep willfully sinning when we know it is sin and be at peace. It truly is a spiritual war though and the only power over sins dominance in a persons life is found through Jesus our Redeemer!
I just worry that people often take God's grace for granted!!

Minarvia

7th March 2009, 02:39 PM

I just worry that people often take God's grace for granted!!

Actually, that fits in a bit with the OP. Either a number of self-professed believers are lying about their belief or the believers have huge confidence that their god is so forgiving that "salvation" is actually a given, despite what the bible claims. You are right to be concerned since I think your belief is sincere.

Minarvia

7th March 2009, 03:06 PM

So question on the above: does involvement in the secular world reduce the level of sincere belief?

I doubt it. I think secular laws reduce the level of sincere belief. Not that I think that's bad. In other threads I've seen people say how tolerant American Christians are compared to some in other countries, or believers in gods in other countries. I think that is because Christians here aren't allowed to behave as they otherwise might because secular laws forbid them from doing so.

In older times Christians could torture people left and right and destroy cultures. We live in a country where such behavior is forbidden. After a couple of hundred years generations change and get accustomed to the laws of the country they live in. So the level of tolerance rises, thus the level of fundamentalist thinking decreases. It has to. They cannot kill people and stone their children because they would be put in prison for it. Or get the death penalty themselves. Also, I could be overly optimistic for the best in human nature, but also over time in such a society, maybe people begin to rely on their own inner moral compass and not one dictated in a bronze aged book.

Okay, now I maybe did it. I may get flamed up one side and down the other here. :o

RobRoy

7th March 2009, 05:00 PM

I doubt it. I think secular laws reduce the level of sincere belief.

In which case, no nunnery needed for you! You can have just as much God-belief, and still operate nicely in the day-to-day world.

I tend to have more respect for people who do this, rather than sequester themselves away, praying for deliverance. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but if you want to make your life worthwhile, you should probably get on living it, and not worry that you might be "tempted" at some undisclosed point in time.

Okay, now I maybe did it. I may get flamed up one side and down the other here. :o

I doubt it, you've yet to say anything even remotely controversial. :D

truethat

7th March 2009, 06:58 PM

True, I think many people are indeed lazy on certain things. I don't want to sound too hard-headed about this, but when it comes to the OP and true belief, I don't think I would be lazy about trying to kiss a god's butt to avoid eternal torment. I think I would enter a nunnery or some such place and pray my butt off and work my fingers to the proverbial bone to avoid such a fate. Many of the Catholic saints did. I don't question their sincere belief for a moment.

As for lazy "believers," I don't know. I guess they kind of believe. Or they must be extremely confident that their god is incredibly forgiving. But if any gods exist, and understanding them is outside of our ability, as I've heard claimed, then why take the chance? Who can prove the god is necessarily good? A few bible stories would be enough to shatter that image. At least for me.
I think this statement is an indication of what I mean. The comparison I make is smokers. People say "Well why do smokers smoke if they know it can give them cancer." I pointed this out pages back but it seems to have been forgotten. Most smokers do not believe that they are going to really get lung cancer from smoking, until it actually happens to them. They know about it, but they are not convinced that they will develop cancer.

This is a good example of the difference between knowing ABOUT God, and about religion, and actually believing that Grace is happening to them. I think it is clear that many of these people don't really believe, just like the smoker doesn't really believe, they just know about it.

truethat

7th March 2009, 07:03 PM

Agreed!

You're doing great. You have the right mindset, you have your own opinions, but you're willing to learn from others, and if you happen to be presented with evidence that suggests something new, you're not above including it. That's exactly what a skeptic is supposed to do. :bigclap

Almost. I think you double quoted the text! :D Just check the tags to make certain there is only one open bracket [] and one closed bracket [/], with the word "quote" inside.

So question on the above: does involvement in the secular world reduce the level of sincere belief?

It depends on your slice of Christian religion though. If your preacher tells you that you can't just thump the Bible to be saved, but must actually crack the spine, and then you don't, then I would call your belief in that religion into question, and I might go so far as to call your belief in God into question. Calling you a liar might be a bit much, but to each their own. However, if your particular flavor favors the fun-filled function of prayer for enlightenment over sitting down with the Good Book, then it's arrogant presumption to suggest that individual is lying about their belief in God(s).

You still are not understanding what I am saying. I do believe that this is because you were raised Catholic.

Christian religion of the born again "Flavor" do not follow LAWS in order to be saved. They are saved through Grace, according to them. So these kinds of believers don't listen to what the preacher tells them to do. Obeying the clergy when it comes to faith is orthodox or old school religion.

The preacher is not considered "God's messenger" he is merely leading the flock. The preacher doesn't mandate what the parishners must do.

That's very Catholic Pope in mindset, so perhaps this is why you have not understood what I mean.

kurious_kathy

8th March 2009, 04:40 PM

Actually, that fits in a bit with the OP. Either a number of self-professed believers are lying about their belief or the believers have huge confidence that their god is so forgiving that "salvation" is actually a given, despite what the bible claims. You are right to be concerned since I think your belief is sincere.

Thank you for noticing my faith is sincere, I wish more could see that!

I am redoing a study on the teachings to the 7 churches in the first chapters of the book of Revelation and this teaching is confronting some of the problems Jesus has with his church. I take it all to heart as this too is mans struggle, we all have heart trouble and Jesus is the only one who can fix it.

Kochanski

8th March 2009, 06:23 PM

Thank you for noticing my faith is sincere, I wish more could see that!

I am redoing a study on the teachings to the 7 churches in the first chapters of the book of Revelation and this teaching is confronting some of the problems Jesus has with his church. I take it all to heart as this too is mans struggle, we all have heart trouble and Jesus is the only one who can fix it.

Your faith may be sincere, but your preaching is off topic. Cut it out.

RobRoy

9th March 2009, 09:52 AM

You still are not understanding what I am saying. I do believe that this is because you were raised Catholic.

Nopers, has nothing to do with my being raised Catholic. I understand what you're saying, I have all along. I disagree with it. That doesn't mean I don't understand it.

Christian religion of the born again "Flavor" do not follow LAWS in order to be saved. They are saved through Grace, according to them. So these kinds of believers don't listen to what the preacher tells them to do. Obeying the clergy when it comes to faith is orthodox or old school religion.

Sorry, you'll have to define which "born again" flavor do you mean? Catholics and Mormons claim to be born again when they are baptized, citing Peter 1 3:21 that this physical experience now allows them to be saved.

Most stock Protestant faiths, like Lutherns or Anglicans, place little to no emphasis in the concept of being "born again". They don't generally deny the conversion process, but they take it as an acceptance of the gift of salvation, something that is freely given and can be accepted at any time. No need to be "born again".

Evangelicals and fundies, on the other hand, place a great deal of stock into being "born again" not necessarily a physical conversation of baptism, but usually as a spiritual experience that shifts them primarily.

The preacher is not considered "God's messenger" he is merely leading the flock. The preacher doesn't mandate what the parishners must do.

See, now here is where you're misunderstanding me. I was using the concept of the preacher as a kind of synechdoche; a part representing the whole. What I was referencing here is the idea that if your religion, as taught in church, Sunday school, Bible study, etc. preaches that you have to do more than jsut believe, you have to read the Bible as well, then you are generally more inclined to do so. If, as occurs for some other mainstream religions, that Bible study is less emphasized in favor of other elements of faith, then you're far less likely to have cracked the spine on the Good Book.

That's very Catholic Pope in mindset, so perhaps this is why you have not understood what I mean.

I'm actually surprised that someone who has "studied religion for years" and has "basically a minor in Theology" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4351112&postcount=248) doesn't know this. There are a great many evangelicals, fundamentalists, and pentacostals who are certainly led by, if not relied almost exclusively upon, the head of their specific church, whether that be Pope, president, or pastor. Even the LDS, who claim primacy to reside with the individual through personal confirmation, really dictate doctrine from on high.

There are certainly some flavors of religion that allow for almost complete individual autonomy, but more often than not, the flock is led. It does not lead.