|
|
Post by Komori on Jan 30, 2008 1:22:47 GMT -5
On worshiping: People have free will and choice, this I know, but that they choose to follow and worship a god shows lack of thinking for yourself, because you are choosing someone to think for you (what is right or wrong by a bible). Also, that you are giving worship/energy to something which won't be there for you when you are really needing it is just wasteful to me. The gods do what they please, regardless of what we pray for and how hard, so why do it when it's at their whim? That energy could be used to do something productive to make matters better for yourself, rather than let it be at the whim of some god. Wow, so who gave you the idea that Christians spend hours upon hours praying fervently to a God who acts randomly and without purpose? What sort of negative stereotype are you living here? Firstly, how do you know God doesn't listen to prayer, that He simply does things at whim that doesn't benefit anyone? Since you clearly know nothing about peoples' gods, whatever religion they be, it's rather silly to assume that if a god were to exist, that god would be unhelpful. Rather, people who pray are working under the belief that they're being heard. So what's the waste? Besides, how much effort do you think it takes to pray? I pray a little bit here and there throughout the day, just a little prayer to God thanking Him or asking for something, while I'm sitting on the bus or walking to the store. Gosh, that takes about as much time and work as thinking, only it's directed to someone!  Rather, I find it much more a waste of time toiling and working over something all by myself, when I can simply ask someone far powerful than I to lend me a hand. And heck, even if He is working on a whim, perhaps that whim leans my way and I get just a teensy bit of help. It sure beats working all alone, and takes zero extra energy. I am in no way saying religion is a bad thing. I'm saying the fact that it splits people into categories is a bad thing. And historically, though it may not have been the cause of certain major events, it has been a contributing factor in them. People ARE split into categories already. Governmental categories: democracy, communism, totalitarianism. Race. Culture/Agriculture/Industry. All these things have also caused wars, killings, fights. Even with religion eliminated, it would do nothing to help the rifts in people, and would probably simply make things worse. And Sam, you've said nothing to counter Crystal's argument that religion does as much good as bad. How many orphanages are run by nuns? How many religious charities feed the homeless and help disaster victims? How much love and joy is spread simply during Christmastime? |
|
|
|
Post by Nova on Jan 30, 2008 1:51:10 GMT -5
On worshiping: People have free will and choice, this I know, but that they choose to follow and worship a god shows lack of thinking for yourself Wow. You totally insulted my religion with this, and pretty much everything you said. Thanks. Should I find someone who is an atheist, Buddhist or Jew.. i welcome their religion. I don't bash them and say believe what i believe, I inquire to what they believe and why they do so. Remember that people here are from all over the globe and come from many different religions. Try to be open minded, hmm? In fact, I think for myself quite clearly. Just because I worship God because He gives me something that I know that nothing can ever replace and well, I think for myself quite fine. I know what foods i should eat, and not to eat. I know when to splurge on occasion. I think fine. Just because I follow God and the Bible does not mean I need any case of help. Just like you have the choice to be an atheist, I have the choice to be a Christian. I'm not bashing your views, please don't bash mine. |
|
|
|
Post by laurensk90 on Jan 30, 2008 10:18:54 GMT -5
You know, I just thought of something. It seems to me that whatever I believe, potentional afterlife can hold nothing bad for me. If I'm right, and there is nothing else coming when you die, and the lights just go out, I have nothing to worry about. I could not be satisfied with being right because I'll be dead. I could not be disappointed about there not being anything after death, because I'll be dead. If I reïncarnate into another living being, I won't have a recollection of my previous life, and the cycle starts again.
On the other hand, if I'm wrong, and there is indeed a God and heaven, and maybe even hell, I still wouldn't have to worry. I'm not planning on becoming a serial murderer/rapist, and I plan on living a good life. Therefore, if God is really that good, he won't send me to hell for not believing in him. And what's left is heaven. Hi God, nice to meet you.
Edit: And then from the believer's perspective it's the same. If there's nothing after life, a believer would be unimaginably disappointed after death, getting to know that all their life they believed in something that turned out to be nothing...only if they weren't dead. But they are, so they don't feel anything.
And if they're right, squee, hi God, thanks for everything. No difference at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herdy on Jan 30, 2008 10:43:16 GMT -5
The difference comes really in how you interpret religious texts and which religion you belong to/who is right. Whilst is essentially shouldnt matter (a good person is a good person, no matter who they are being good for), it could be said that if you dont believe, you are going to hell/a lesser life, and equally so if you follow the "wrong" religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by puffydude on Jan 30, 2008 10:56:05 GMT -5
You know, I just thought of something. It seems to me that whatever I believe, potentional afterlife can hold nothing bad for me. If I'm right, and there is nothing else coming when you die, and the lights just go out, I have nothing to worry about. I could not be satisfied with being right because I'll be dead. I could not be disappointed about there not being anything after death, because I'll be dead. If I reïncarnate into another living being, I won't have a recollection of my previous life, and the cycle starts again. On the other hand, if I'm wrong, and there is indeed a God and heaven, and maybe even hell, I still wouldn't have to worry. I'm not planning on becoming a serial murderer/rapist, and I plan on living a good life. Therefore, if God is really that good, he won't send me to hell for not believing in him. And what's left is heaven. Hi God, nice to meet you. Edit: And then from the believer's perspective it's the same. If there's nothing after life, a believer would be unimaginably disappointed after death, getting to know that all their life they believed in something that turned out to be nothing...only if they weren't dead. But they are, so they don't feel anything. And if they're right, squee, hi God, thanks for everything. No difference at all. I suppose that's true. The only situation where good people woud suffer is if you really do go to the fiery pits of hell for not believing in God. Still, that doesn't add up to me; it's one of the big problems I've always had with religion. If God is o kind and forgiving, why would he be so merciless and cruel to a good person? |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jan 30, 2008 17:36:42 GMT -5
Laurens, what you've hit upon is something similar to Pascal's wager. That is, Pascal reasoned that it's a safer bet to follow Christianity than not. If Christianity is wrong, and there is simply nothing after life, than everyone's life ends in oblivion and nothingness. However, if Christianity is right, and there is a Heaven and Hell, then you're risking the possibility of an eternity of torture. I suppose that's true. The only situation where good people woud suffer is if you really do go to the fiery pits of hell for not believing in God. Still, that doesn't add up to me; it's one of the big problems I've always had with religion. If God is o kind and forgiving, why would he be so merciless and cruel to a good person? How would you define a "good person?" How would someone else define a "good person?" Our opinions of "good" differ from person to person, so how could you even say that you'd be doing enough? Listen, no person is good enough. We're all born with sin, and we all sin all the time. Just because we think we're "good" doesn't make us so. He's created Heaven, a place of complete and utter perfection. None of us is perfect, so none of us can do anything to be "good enough" simply by being a nice guy every once in a while. Yet He gave us the easiest "Get out of Hell Free" ticket in the world, simply trusting that Jesus was perfect enough to pay our fare into Heaven. Now, Hell is simply the absence of God. It's the place where all His goodness and light are gone, and all that is leftover is the suffering. If we spend our entire lifetimes in the absence of God, how can we expect any different in the life after? Yes, God is kind, and merciful, but we as a person have to do our part as well. And honestly, that part isn't hard in the slightest. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2008 18:13:16 GMT -5
Laurens, what you've hit upon is something similar to Pascal's wager. That is, Pascal reasoned that it's a safer bet to follow Christianity than not. If Christianity is wrong, and there is simply nothing after life, than everyone's life ends in oblivion and nothingness. However, if Christianity is right, and there is a Heaven and Hell, then you're risking the possibility of an eternity of torture. I suppose that's true. The only situation where good people woud suffer is if you really do go to the fiery pits of hell for not believing in God. Still, that doesn't add up to me; it's one of the big problems I've always had with religion. If God is o kind and forgiving, why would he be so merciless and cruel to a good person? How would you define a "good person?" How would someone else define a "good person?" Our opinions of "good" differ from person to person, so how could you even say that you'd be doing enough? Listen, no person is good enough. We're all born with sin, and we all sin all the time. Just because we think we're "good" doesn't make us so. He's created Heaven, a place of complete and utter perfection. None of us is perfect, so none of us can do anything to be "good enough" simply by being a nice guy every once in a while. Yet He gave us the easiest "Get out of Hell Free" ticket in the world, simply trusting that Jesus was perfect enough to pay our fare into Heaven. Now, Hell is simply the absence of God. It's the place where all His goodness and light are gone, and all that is leftover is the suffering. If we spend our entire lifetimes in the absence of God, how can we expect any different in the life after? Yes, God is kind, and merciful, but we as a person have to do our part as well. And honestly, that part isn't hard in the slightest. Great job describing it, Komori. I LOVE seeing this kind of passion when one speaks of Christianity. ^^ I often times bring up the same comparison with my non-Christian friends...it really does make you think.  |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jan 30, 2008 18:58:43 GMT -5
It's nice to see passion in a debate, but I'll have to ask y'all to be careful around here. Whether you're one religion or another or not religious at all, remember that you're speaking to someone else who usually isn't of your beliefs. Try to treat them the same way you would like them to - i.e., read your posts, switch all the names around, and see if you would feel insulted by it or feel like people were shoving their beliefs down your throat. And then give a little leeway for people who may be less thick-skinned than you are.  And in reverse, if someone says something you find offensive, try to correct them nicely, not to yell at them or anything. There hasn't really been any problems yet, but I'd really appreciate if you'd do this; it'll make my job easier and it'll keep this debate going longer. xD |
|
|
|
Post by Squirrelgirl on Jan 30, 2008 23:57:06 GMT -5
I suppose that's true. The only situation where good people woud suffer is if you really do go to the fiery pits of hell for not believing in God. Still, that doesn't add up to me; it's one of the big problems I've always had with religion. If God is o kind and forgiving, why would he be so merciless and cruel to a good person? How would you define a "good person?" How would someone else define a "good person?" Our opinions of "good" differ from person to person, so how could you even say that you'd be doing enough? Listen, no person is good enough. We're all born with sin, and we all sin all the time. Just because we think we're "good" doesn't make us so. He's created Heaven, a place of complete and utter perfection. None of us is perfect, so none of us can do anything to be "good enough" simply by being a nice guy every once in a while. Yet He gave us the easiest "Get out of Hell Free" ticket in the world, simply trusting that Jesus was perfect enough to pay our fare into Heaven. Now, Hell is simply the absence of God. It's the place where all His goodness and light are gone, and all that is leftover is the suffering. If we spend our entire lifetimes in the absence of God, how can we expect any different in the life after? Yes, God is kind, and merciful, but we as a person have to do our part as well. And honestly, that part isn't hard in the slightest. I'm sorry, but I really don't agree with what I think you're saying. I'm Catholic, though with a few unorthodox views, and I truly don't believe God condemns people for not believing in him. You have to take into account that some people are raised atheists. They've never known God, and, to be perfectly honest, lots of the most noticeable Christian groups are the terrifying fire and brimstone types. They don't leave a good impression. As for those that choose to become atheists, well, maybe they just really don't believe it. It's hard to imagine when it's such a large part of your life, but the whole belief in God thing can be rationalized as part of the development of humans, or some people just truly have lives that are so troubled that they give up. As having been near both of these areas before at some point in my life, I can definitely understand this. And if I can understand it, I would imagine that God could, too. He knows that we're flawed creatures, but as long as we live good lives and do good deeds, I don't think God really cares if we believe in Him or not. He just wants the best for us, even if we do choose to reject Him. If this makes any more sense to you, I think it's sort of Prodigal Son. He's always willing to accept and forgive people, even if it's when they die and see He exists. ...Though, admittedly, I don't believe in Hell, so in my ideology, everyone goes to Heaven automatically. Like I said, I'm an unorthodox Catholic. I don't feel like explaining why I think this right now, because it's late, and I've had a hard week. I hope I didn't offend anyone, especially after Crystal's post. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jan 31, 2008 0:30:13 GMT -5
Well, while that's a happy thought, that's not what the Bible says:
It doesn't say "or if you're a good person." It doesn't say "even if you ignore or reject Me." If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then this lays it out pretty plainly.
But you know, I don't know how God works. I'm simply a puny mortal. I don't know what happens to those people who live in the far reaches of tribal places, never hearing the Word of God, never getting that chance. I don't know what happens to people who are specially abled, or who get amnesia, or something like that. I just have to trust that God is kind and merciful, and He knows those situations better than I would. And yeah, it'd be nice to believe that everyone gets to go to Heaven, that it's all such a happy, happy place after life for everyone, but the Bible tells me it's not:
Sorry it's such a downer, but I can't simply make up the way the world works simply because I'd like it better this other way. I can only read what God has written and take that to heart, because it's the only thing I know is the absolute truth. I'll never fully understand it, but I just have to have faith that things will work out in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurensk90 on Jan 31, 2008 10:00:31 GMT -5
Oh boy, here come the bible citations.
But there is just so much doubt. And not only from the people I'm debating with. Although Jacob went pretty far with saying everyone who believes in God and follows the bible doesn't think for themselves, I do keep seeing blind faith.
We just got to have faith, that everything will be explained, that everything is going to turn out well, and that everything is going to be better. But we don't know.
I have no doubt. I know that there's just this life, and nothing thereafter. I know that religion is just something that we evolved with, and I believe it's something we will evolve out later.
If you look at all the different religions in all the world, then it's noticable that they're going through development just like the 'modern religons' did. Jews were the first to pick up monotheïsm, then Christianity and the Islam from that, which conquered Europe, mixing and taking over the Greeks' and Germanians' polytheïsm, so to say. Then in Asia, Hinduism, and from that, Buddhism flourished. The polytheïstic Hinduism remained because of the caste system embedded in the countries' people and government. Out of that, Buddhism was created, by a Hindu prince, which is by some not regarded as a religion, more as a "body of philosophies influenced by the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha." I have deep respect for Buddhists, as they lay down their ideas about God/gods without much conflict. From there, it's not a large step from stopping to follow one man's 'Enlighted' ideas to form your own.
|
|
|
|
Post by puffydude on Jan 31, 2008 17:16:38 GMT -5
Laurens, what you've hit upon is something similar to Pascal's wager. That is, Pascal reasoned that it's a safer bet to follow Christianity than not. If Christianity is wrong, and there is simply nothing after life, than everyone's life ends in oblivion and nothingness. However, if Christianity is right, and there is a Heaven and Hell, then you're risking the possibility of an eternity of torture. I suppose that's true. The only situation where good people woud suffer is if you really do go to the fiery pits of hell for not believing in God. Still, that doesn't add up to me; it's one of the big problems I've always had with religion. If God is o kind and forgiving, why would he be so merciless and cruel to a good person? How would you define a "good person?" How would someone else define a "good person?" Our opinions of "good" differ from person to person, so how could you even say that you'd be doing enough? Listen, no person is good enough. We're all born with sin, and we all sin all the time. Just because we think we're "good" doesn't make us so. He's created Heaven, a place of complete and utter perfection. None of us is perfect, so none of us can do anything to be "good enough" simply by being a nice guy every once in a while. Yet He gave us the easiest "Get out of Hell Free" ticket in the world, simply trusting that Jesus was perfect enough to pay our fare into Heaven. Now, Hell is simply the absence of God. It's the place where all His goodness and light are gone, and all that is leftover is the suffering. If we spend our entire lifetimes in the absence of God, how can we expect any different in the life after? Yes, God is kind, and merciful, but we as a person have to do our part as well. And honestly, that part isn't hard in the slightest. I know that everyone makes mistakes, and everyone is flawed, but if you have honest intentions, and spend you life doing good deeds, does that not make one a good person? You can go into all sorts of different arguments, but when all is said and done, a God who sends someone like that to hell for being born with sin is not good or merciful by any standard we know of. You could say that it's all God's will and he has a reason for doing it that no-one could understand, but it's all very vague, isn't it? In my view, a God who turns away his own creations because of flaws that they have no way of preventing or controlling is nothing but cruel. |
|
|
|
Post by KitClairvoyance on Jan 31, 2008 17:23:10 GMT -5
Alright, there are a few things that need saying here.
Firstly, Jacob, can we please drop the notion that religious people don't think for themselves, please? Here, I'll even give you a logical explanation why your assumption is false.
From your argument, we can draw one main premise:
P1: Religious people don't think for themselves. i.e. they are like blind sheep, following wherever they are led.
From this we can infer that:
P2: Religious people will never change their beliefs. After all, how many sheep protesting their fate have you seen before?
We also can infer that:
P3: Religious texts promote blind obedience.
Now, from your post we can draw some other important premises:
P4: Different branches of Christianity have been developed.
Now, for P4 to be true, the following needs to be true as well:
P5 (or rather, NOT P2) : There has been some form of change in the way that religous people think.
Now, we can draw several hypothesises from all of that.
H1: If P1 is true, then P2 is true. That is: If religious people don't think for themselves, then they will never change their beliefs.
H2: P1 is true, if and only if P3 is true. That is: Religious people don't think for themselves, if and only if religious texts promote blind obedience. (Because it's a contradiction otherwise)
H3: P4 is true, if and only if (NOT P2) is true. That is: There has been some form of change in the way that religious people think, if and only if they they think for themselves.
H4: P1 is true. (You have been arguing this for a long time)
H5: P4 is true. (You said this too. And it's a fact anyway)
( You can see where I'm heading now, right? )
Now, to put all that together.
We'll assume both H4 and H5 are true. So P1 and P4 are true.
P1 = True
P4 = True
Now, for H1. If P1 is true, then P2 is true. So:
P2 = True
So far your theory is holding up. Now, for H2. If P1 is true, then P3 is true. So:
P3 = True
And now for the last hypothesis, H3. If P2 is false, then P4 is true.
..
Wait, but we said P2 was true. We have now reached a contradiction that goes along the lines of: If religious people don't think for themselves, they will never change the way they think. However, different branches of Christianity have been developed, and this is only possible if and only if religious people think for themselves.
Now, since P4 is an established fact, it goes to reason that P1 is in fact, wrong. Thank you.
Also, just for the sake of argument, I'll demolish H2 as well. Religious texts do not promote blind obedience. Really. I'll explain.
Christianity for one (since it seems to be the main cannon fodder here) does promote the seeking of knowledge. In the book of Proverbs, there have been chapters devoted to the seeking of wisdom and knowledge. In the New Testament, Jesus debated with the leaders of the temple (Luke 2:46), and blind obedience doesn't promote that sort of thing, does it? We are pretty much being told to question our beliefs, and to think (yes Jacob, think) about them.
And just to use another religion, Buddhism's ultimate purpose is to achieve enlightenment. From Wikipedia:
Again, the believers of this religion are encouraged to think about what they believe, and why they believe in it. To investigate various religious practices. Have you done that yourself? If you have, then you would have realised all this.
Now, since religious texts to not promote blind obedience, religious people just cannot be blind sheep that don't think. It's a paradox. Really. Think about it. It goes in a circle. Like the chicken and egg.
I had more to say to others, but this took longer than I thought. xD .. I need my sleep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Squirrelgirl on Jan 31, 2008 18:09:22 GMT -5
Well, while that's a happy thought, that's not what the Bible says: It doesn't say "or if you're a good person." It doesn't say "even if you ignore or reject Me." If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then this lays it out pretty plainly. But you know, I don't know how God works. I'm simply a puny mortal. I don't know what happens to those people who live in the far reaches of tribal places, never hearing the Word of God, never getting that chance. I don't know what happens to people who are specially abled, or who get amnesia, or something like that. I just have to trust that God is kind and merciful, and He knows those situations better than I would. And yeah, it'd be nice to believe that everyone gets to go to Heaven, that it's all such a happy, happy place after life for everyone, but the Bible tells me it's not: Sorry it's such a downer, but I can't simply make up the way the world works simply because I'd like it better this other way. I can only read what God has written and take that to heart, because it's the only thing I know is the absolute truth. I'll never fully understand it, but I just have to have faith that things will work out in the end. While I respect your opinion, my opinion isn't just optimism. I can interpret your quotations to meet my own needs, as well--my interpretation just isn't as literal. And for texts that are a couple thousand years old that have been modified over time (certain Kings edited things to suit their own needs), I believe that a loose interpretation is just as viable. Basically, the way that I would interpret those passages is not a literal interpretation of believing in Jesus and following him, but rather following those teachings. Jesus taught to create a world of peace, understanding, and love, and you don't have to be a Christian to do what he asked. I interpret those few as people who choose to live according to those teachings, whether they are Christian or not. Please don't assume that I've based my opinions on my own optimism--I know how to interpret scripture, and I just interpret it differently. And, like you said, we're mortal and can't possibly understand the real meaning. The meaning that I've derived just fits my life better. I think we might have to agree to disagree on this. Also, I can't argue Bible verses, seeing as I've never been able to memorize anything. ^_^ |
|
|
|
Post by laurensk90 on Jan 31, 2008 18:19:12 GMT -5
Laurens, what you've hit upon is something similar to Pascal's wager. That is, Pascal reasoned that it's a safer bet to follow Christianity than not. If Christianity is wrong, and there is simply nothing after life, than everyone's life ends in oblivion and nothingness. However, if Christianity is right, and there is a Heaven and Hell, then you're risking the possibility of an eternity of torture. I suppose that's true. The only situation where good people woud suffer is if you really do go to the fiery pits of hell for not believing in God. Still, that doesn't add up to me; it's one of the big problems I've always had with religion. If God is o kind and forgiving, why would he be so merciless and cruel to a good person? How would you define a "good person?" How would someone else define a "good person?" Our opinions of "good" differ from person to person, so how could you even say that you'd be doing enough? Listen, no person is good enough. We're all born with sin, and we all sin all the time. Just because we think we're "good" doesn't make us so. He's created Heaven, a place of complete and utter perfection. None of us is perfect, so none of us can do anything to be "good enough" simply by being a nice guy every once in a while. Yet He gave us the easiest "Get out of Hell Free" ticket in the world, simply trusting that Jesus was perfect enough to pay our fare into Heaven. Now, Hell is simply the absence of God. It's the place where all His goodness and light are gone, and all that is leftover is the suffering. If we spend our entire lifetimes in the absence of God, how can we expect any different in the life after? Yes, God is kind, and merciful, but we as a person have to do our part as well. And honestly, that part isn't hard in the slightest. But wait, there's one loophole to this one. How do you know that your religion is the right one? You've just assumed that God only supports Christianity and nothing else. That means, if a 'good' person who gets sent to hell for not believing in him, that must mean all the other good people from other religions/paths of life will be sent to hell too. And tell me, how much of the world population is that? From a neutral point of view, it's impossible to tell which religion is the 'right' one. Defining a 'good person' was hard enough on it's own, now it's to define the 'right' religion. For all we know, God might be only supporting muslims, showering every suicude bomber with virgins in heaven. Or it's the Hindus who have the right idea, and it's polytheïsm that's the one. How passionate you may be about your religion, there is always someone just as passionate about theirs, different from yours. So here, Pascal's wager becomes obsolete. His bet was to follow Christianity instead of atheïsm to avoid being sent to hell. But the truth is, he has all the religions in the world to choose from, and then it comes down to deciding which of all these religions is the right one. That comes down to a whole lot of research on all that, and that does require a lot of effort. And then suddenly, it's a whole lot easier to just let the rest of the world fight this out and follow your own ideas instead of someone else's. |
|
