Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

[Vandalshandle]

Since the entire premise of Christianity makes no sense, whatever, (God sending his son to be tortured to death in order to "save" mankind from his own creations), I agree that logic simply does not apply.

Let's try backing up a few steps. What was the biggest struggle between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time? It was Jesus' announcement that sins are forgiven. This is such a given in our own time that we cannot appreciate what Jesus went through two thousand years ago.

The religious leaders at the time insisted that Jesus had no right to make such a wild claim. His words did not convince them, nor his good deeds, nor his miracles. No one had the right to announce that God forgave people their sins simply because a person had deep regrets and turned away from committing that sin so that it would not interfere with them being obedient to God. The religious leader of the day asked Jesus to stop with that proclamation. Jesus would not voluntarily stop. He insisted his words were from God.

This was a New Testimony (Testament/Covenant) and no such thing took place without the signs of a Covenant. The sign? A Covenant at that time required blood. Jesus (and Jesus maintained it was willingly) gave his blood for the sign demanded as the sign of this New Testament/Covenant of Repentance for the Forgiveness of Sins.

So to sum up...those in power at that time stopped Jesus from proclaiming his message, but we see that did not work out so well. Today, almost all of mankind, whatever his/her religion (or lack thereof) believes that God forgives our sins. All because one man had a divine message he was willing to lay down his life to deliver. This is now known as the blood of the New Covenant between God and mankind. It is not known as God torturing Jesus.

Ok, so you are saying that Hell is closed down.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I think ding in one of his comments attacking somebody’s “secular humanism” and of course in his “signature” remarks attacking “socialism” as a terrible “atheist religion” moves the discussion in a new (perhaps unfortunate) direction. I consider myself a “secular humanist.” Or just a “humanist.”

The first real criticisms of the relatively new term “secular humanism” came in 1943, when the Archbishop of Canterbury warned that the "Christian tradition... was in danger of being undermined by a 'Secular Humanism' which hoped to retain Christian values without Christian faith."

I don’t see any inconsistency with being a “secular humanist” and having “religious“ or even Christian “values”. Religious superstition or “faith” in any organized Church doctrine is another matter. That includes membership in any particular Secular Humanist group too.

“Socialism” is a more complicated question — especially since the degeneration of the first apparently successful “Marxist socialist” revolution in backward Russia revealed how in the real world socialist dreams could degenerate into a Stalinist nightmare, one even “democratic socialists” like George Orwell despised and denounced. Of course “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” had powerful undoubted ideological similarity to dogmatic religion. Some say Socialism was “The God that Failed.”

But while Ding denounces “socialism” in almost every imaginable way, he added perceptively, “There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just.” Well, we all know that “the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.” But why argue — as so many do today — that those “godless communists” in government, those “damn Democrats,” the “New World Order,” or even Wall Street itself, are leading us inevitably to “world government” and “evil socialism”? What would be so bad about ending war via “world government” and greater social equality ... from a religious perspective?

To me, forgetting all political rhetoric, “Christian Socialism” is no joke. It has a history not just going back to “The Catholic Worker” in the Great Depression but to the earliest recorded history ... of the apostles themselves. But giving one’s money away, eating in common, recognizing that the rich could no more get into heaven than pass through the eye of a needle, or even just joining a monastery — these are mostly historically forgotten, today rarely practiced aspects of Christianity. I’m not saying we should bring them back. Just that we ought to recognize that the moral and spiritual grounding of democratic socialists today are not those of Stalin — or Satan.

 

[occupied]

A lot of people are atheists because religion failed them. They got preached at and told to be obedient and judged and molested and emotionally beat down to point it looked like a big sadistic joke. You're preaching at me right now without giving two shits why I came to believe as I do. Religion had nothing useful to say when my crisis of faith arrived so I walked away. I'll have no regrets even if I burn in Hell.

Please do not imagine yourself burning in hell. My grandfather was an atheist. About a year after his death I was in tears over a relatively minor event in my own life, yet which seemed major at the time. The person who helped me out was not in hell.

The vine and the branches. When the branches are not trimmed they can be strangling, and I am dreadfully sorry you got entangled in them. One of religion's greatest failures is giving people too high expectations of what it can and cannot do.

Even so, I maintain we should not give up on God. While Mother Teresa probably would not have ever advised giving up religious practices, I think she once said something that might be of great value for people who would like to try it on their own: “If we pray, we will believe; if we believe, we will love; if we love, we will serve. Only then we put our love of God into action.”

I do not need all that mystical mumbo-jumbo and threats of eternal damnation to be good. I have a strong set of ethics and stick to them even when it's inconvenient or costly. I give of myself and do all the things Jesus said to do for your fellow man. God is just going to have to satisfied with that. I can't worship a God that lets so much suffering exist. I really don't care about mysterious ways and God's plan. That stuff is cold comfort to me.

 

[Meriweather]

Ok, so you are saying that Hell is closed down.

No. There is a great difference between those who deeply regret their sins and wrong-doings and those who revel in hate and evil.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is a great difference between those who deeply regret their sins and wrong-doings and those who revel in hate and evil.

And we certainly don't need any iron aged mythology to understand that. In fact, your iron aged mythology actually handicaps us in recognizing the difference.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Let’s chat about the atheist religion.
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Paradox: The question about → "that the gods are such poor communicators" (sic) implies the possibility of multiple deities ("gods" >→ "Polytheism") and the assumption that the "gods" are non-human that do communicate ("intelligent" + "supernatural"). However, the question on → "have you asked a rabbi" (sic) implies a connection to an Abrahamic Religion (Monotheism + multiple religions with a belief in the same Supreme Being).

Why is it that the gods are such poor communicators?

Have you asked a rabbi that question yet?

Or Indeependent or RoccoR or rylah or irosie91 or Mindful ?

I wonder why not?

(COMMENT)

This is an illegitimately complex question (controversial presuppositions) that have to be addressed individually.

The belief in a deity (monotheistic or polytheistic) implies a belief in the supernatural (attributed to a causal force beyond human understanding or scientific explanation using the known laws of the universe).

Is the original question even in the realm of being answerable? And there is the first of the dilemma about poor communication. Is it poor communication? Is the "communication" unintelligible because of human language limitations? Even the Abrahamic Religions with a belief in the same Supreme Being have very different practices in using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or ultimate reality or God. Even the "words of power," the magical talisman, amulets, and sacred ruins/relics believed to have special powers are very different.

(ALTERNATIVE)

Maybe the belief in some spiritual existence beyond death, and the power of infinite is just a mental aberration to allow the mind some peace. The inability to understand the deity is because there actually is no deity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Meriweather]

I do not need all that mystical mumbo-jumbo and threats of eternal damnation to be good. I have a strong set of ethics and stick to them even when it's inconvenient or costly. I give of myself and do all the things Jesus said to do for your fellow man. God is just going to have to satisfied with that. I can't worship a God that lets so much suffering exist. I really don't care about mysterious ways and God's plan. That stuff is cold comfort to me.

I don't think anyone needs threats to be good either. In fact, threats can often have the reverse effect because it is in our nature to struggle to get away from the person(s) who are threatening us. Besides, you know that God is more than satisfied with that; He embraces and welcomes those who continue on through the suffering in this world.

I tend to believe that each of us asked to be born (temporarily) into this world simply to learn what suffering can teach us that cannot be taught in a utopia. I believe God is with us through this difficult choice, and that His faith in us is often much greater than our faith in Him.

 

[occupied]

I do not need all that mystical mumbo-jumbo and threats of eternal damnation to be good. I have a strong set of ethics and stick to them even when it's inconvenient or costly. I give of myself and do all the things Jesus said to do for your fellow man. God is just going to have to satisfied with that. I can't worship a God that lets so much suffering exist. I really don't care about mysterious ways and God's plan. That stuff is cold comfort to me.

I don't think anyone needs threats to be good either. In fact, threats can often have the reverse effect because it is in our nature to struggle to get away from the person(s) who are threatening us. Besides, you know that God is more than satisfied with that; He embraces and welcomes those who continue on through the suffering in this world.

I tend to believe that each of us asked to be born (temporarily) into this world simply to learn what suffering can teach us that cannot be taught in a utopia. I believe God is with us through this difficult choice, and that His faith in us is often much greater than our faith in Him.

I grew up in strict Southern Baptist and later Pentecostal Holiness churches. All that screaming and crying and hellfire and brimstone hysterics screwed me up for a long time. The pious pedophiles literally had a hand in that too. As I said earlier, religion failed me. I saw where the extremes of belief lead. It felt a lot like Hell.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Let’s chat about the atheist religion.
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Paradox: The question about → "that the gods are such poor communicators" (sic) implies the possibility of multiple deities ("gods" >→ "Polytheism") and the assumption that the "gods" are non-human that do communicate ("intelligent" + "supernatural"). However, the question on → "have you asked a rabbi" (sic) implies a connection to an Abrahamic Religion (Monotheism + multiple religions with a belief in the same Supreme Being).

Why is it that the gods are such poor communicators?

Have you asked a rabbi that question yet?

Or Indeependent or RoccoR or rylah or irosie91 or Mindful ?

I wonder why not?

(COMMENT)

This is an illegitimately complex question (controversial presuppositions) that have to be addressed individually.

The belief in a deity (monotheistic or polytheistic) implies a belief in the supernatural (attributed to a causal force beyond human understanding or scientific explanation using the known laws of the universe).

Is the original question even in the realm of being answerable? And there is the first of the dilemma about poor communication. Is it poor communication? Is the "communication" unintelligible because of human language limitations? Even the Abrahamic Religions with a belief in the same Supreme Being have very different practices in using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or ultimate reality or God. Even the "words of power," the magical talisman, amulets, and sacred ruins/relics believed to have special powers are very different.

(ALTERNATIVE)

Maybe the belief in some spiritual existence beyond death, and the power of infinite is just a mental aberration to allow the mind some peace. The inability to understand the deity is because there actually is no deity.

Most Respectfully,
R

My comment about the gods being poor communicators was…somewhat facetious, but it speaks to the controvercies that happen in these forums. The interpretations of what the bibles “really mean” wander from literal interpretation to some rather “new wave” clarifications.

So the question is a relevant one and it’s worth asking why the gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man, in a vague language that only a minor portion of the world would understand. What is more important: Gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at, if the latter is the case! What if you "glean wrong"? Obviously, the vast majority of the world does precisely that.

I'm sure we can all agree (at least I'm convinced so), that the Egyptian gods must be the true gods because we have their inscriptions chiseled in stone, unaltered by time and the corruptible hand of man

 

[Meriweather]

I grew up in strict Southern Baptist and later Pentecostal Holiness churches. All that screaming and crying and hellfire and brimstone hysterics screwed me up for a long time. The pious pedophiles literally had a hand in that too. As I said earlier, religion failed me. I saw where the extremes of belief lead. It felt a lot like Hell.

Reminds me of high school rallies where we are supposed to stomp, clap, whistle, and yell in order to show our winning spirit. Not a comfortable place for those of us who preferred library quiet. I am thinking for some of us, God can be drowned out by the noise; while for others, where silence speaks louder than words, He can be drowned out by the quiet.

Our churches, temples, and synagogues can only take any of us so far in our faith. In the end, the great steps forward are often on our own. I am not saying we all should leave church, I don't think that at all. Nor am I saying that we should let church hold us back. There is more out there. For me, it is seizing the more that is out there and then bringing it back with me to church (not to mention into every aspect of the rest of my life).

Perhaps for you, church could not accept what you had to offer. Jesus advised us that when that happens, shake the dust and move on. You seem to have moved on quite well--and out of extremely difficult situations.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ok, so you are saying that Hell is closed down.

No. There is a great difference between those who deeply regret their sins and wrong-doings and those who revel in hate and evil.

So, we are back to God sending his own children to hell for an eternity. Nice guy. But, I have "free will" to do what he wants me to do instead of what Satan wants me to do, or else endure eternal unimaginable torture, in spite of the fact that I would have been better off his never having created me in the first place.. And this makes sense to you?

 

[Meriweather]

So, we are back to God sending his own children to hell for an eternity. Nice guy. But, I have "free will" to do what he wants me to do instead of what Satan wants me to do, or else endure eternal unimaginable torture, in spite of the fact that I would have been better off his never having created me in the first place.. And this makes sense to you?

It is not about God sending anyone to hell for eternity. It is about people choosing hell for their eternity. Or, are you arguing that people who thrive on evil and hate should be forced into heaven where they must be good and loving? We are told Satan decided the better eternal existence for him was hate and evil. We haven't yet heard a thing about him regretting that choice. That being the case, if you choose hell, or an eternity where hate and evil are the norm and you have no worries at all about having to serve, love, or be good, why the complaints? It sounds like you want to be evil and hateful in heaven...in which case it would be hell, which should make you happy, but apparently will not because it is again hell.

Why do you think you are headed for hell? I imagine Satan has certain standards for those he spends time with as well. What makes you so sure you meet those standards? Now, wouldn't that be hell--wanting to be evil and hateful, but not being being evil or hateful enough for hell and ending up having to be good and loving in heaven.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, we are back to God sending his own children to hell for an eternity. Nice guy. But, I have "free will" to do what he wants me to do instead of what Satan wants me to do, or else endure eternal unimaginable torture, in spite of the fact that I would have been better off his never having created me in the first place.. And this makes sense to you?

It is not about God sending anyone to hell for eternity. It is about people choosing hell for their eternity. Or, are you arguing that people who thrive on evil and hate should be forced into heaven where they must be good and loving? We are told Satan decided the better eternal existence for him was hate and evil. We haven't yet heard a thing about him regretting that choice. That being the case, if you choose hell, or an eternity where hate and evil are the norm and you have no worries at all about having to serve, love, or be good, why the complaints? It sounds like you want to be evil and hateful in heaven...in which case it would be hell, which should make you happy, but apparently will not because it is again hell.

Why do you think you are headed for hell? I imagine Satan has certain standards for those he spends time with as well. What makes you so sure you meet those standards? Now, wouldn't that be hell--wanting to be evil and hateful, but not being being evil or hateful enough for hell and ending up having to be good and loving in heaven.

I think nothing of the sort. I think that you can be sold anything by liars, fakes, and phonies. Not that I really care, but it just seems like a sad waste of a mind, which you were born with, but believe that god does not want you to use it..

 

[Meriweather]

I think nothing of the sort. I think that you can be sold anything by liars, fakes, and phonies. Not that I really care, but it just seems like a sad waste of a mind, which you were born with, but believe that god does not want you to use it..

You don't believe God wants you to use your mind? Do you also believe God doesn't want you to use your left eye or your right foot? Where did you come up with the idea God doesn't want you to use your mind?

 

[LittleNipper]

Do you believe that non-Christians who equally strive to live a good and moral life will ... “burn in hell,” or somehow be punished simply for rejecting “Jesus was GOD HIMSELF” Christianity?

I think this is an important question. But first I would like to share my beliefs on heaven and hell because I think too many people get caught up in that. It is not about the destination. It has never been about the destination. It has always been about the journey. Specifically, to end the journey as a better person than when one started. A relationship with the Creator or Jesus or the Holy Spirit or whatever perception one wants to use for God is meant to inform our journey. No one really knows what happens after we die. The closest I can come to heaven is being eternally united with God on some level. The closest I can come to hell is being eternally separated from God. In effect he grants us our wish which is to be left alone and he withdraws his spirit from us. Only then will people realize what they lost and never knew what they had because they failed to seek it out even though the evidence was all around them. So getting back to your question, if someone offers you a gift and you reject it, was the gift received? Because that is what Christ was offering, a gift. I don't have a good answer, but I believe we will all be offered a chance to accept it when we die. The ones who embraced the spirit of God and transformed themselves will experience God at a different level. The ones who didn't but accepted the final offer will be united but won't experience God at the same level. The ones who reject the final offer will be granted their wish which is to be left alone.

But regardless of all of that, the ones who embraced God's spirit while alive will lead richer and fuller lives along their journey than if they had never embraced God's spirit and will be able to see how God was pruning them, will learn more lessons and will find more peace through the storms.

I think your comment about the “gift” of belief is fair — an honest presentation of a view of what a “connection to God” can bring. I really like that you speak of its potential “transforming” influence on believers. Also I like that you made your points only once directly referring to your own spiritual connection to Christ. Of course mere belief that “Jesus was GOD HIMSELF” guarantees no such transformation. To me, when such belief is dogmatically maintained it can actually narrow one’s humanity. It can be just another false ideology.

Whatever our religious or philosophical views, we all live on the same planet, in a world where MONEY is God, more or less. But that’s another whole story...

"I AM the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through ME." Sorry, but that comment alone would seem exclusive of any other means or directive. If you don't have a relationship with GOD through the LORD JESUS CHRIST, you don't and cannot have a relationship with the FATHER.

 

[LittleNipper]

I once had a real axe to grind with God. I was a real dick about it. My almost saintly mom died a cruel prolonged death.

That is one of the hardest issues to deal with -- the death of innocent people. I still have problems with what happened to Job and his family, but understand Job more today. God has a more grandiose plan. What people forget is Satan is the one who does the evil stuff because he has dominion over the world. It's easy to blame God for all the ills in the world.

It's easy to blame God because he is supposedly omnipotent and omnipresent existing everywhere simultaneously in the past, present and future. I don't really care about a plan that looks exactly like naturally occurring entropy in a slowly dying universe.

Yes, it's easy to blame God but that's taking the easy way out. Not to blame him and blame Satan is harder; Satan is good at hiding. I also agree that entropy is increasing due to Adam's sin. The part I disagree with is slowly dying. It's happening rapidly.

Who do we blame for Satan?

Satan?

Who do you blame for your mistakes? God?

So, you answer a question that you can not answer, by asking another question. Got it. I used to be married to someone who got away with that for years.

I guess that was lost on you. FYI, it’s not God’s fault when any of his creatures fail to do good.

now do you understand?

I understand that god created Satan, and that I get punished by god if Satan leads me astray.

Actually, GOD created a very beautiful and highly intelligent Cherubim who would later come to defy GOD and tempt Adam.

 

[alang1216]

Any evidence that people back then were too stupid too build ships when they were able to survive horrendous weather and that's why we're here?

Any evidence that people back then were too stupid to build smart phones when they were able to survive horrendous weather and that's why we're here?

They were just as smart as we are but there is no evidence they possessed the technology for either. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

They lived near rivers and coasts, right?

And if they did?

They did. There’s no if.

So it shouldn’t be a shock that they navigated and took advantage of that resource.

That was never in dispute. The ancients didn't even cross a sea if they could avoid it, they generally sailed within sight of land. Are you trying to say they had the ships to cross the Atlantic?

I have no idea. They had boats. No one really knows what extent they had or that they limited their voyages to sight of land.

At least 10,000 years ago man wasn’t much different than modern man in physiological terms. i would expect they had the same distribution of intelligence that we have now, so I’m not going to limit what that intelligence might have produced.

The boats they had in the Mediterranean back then were incapable of crossing the Atlantic since they were mostly powered by rowers. Check out the shipwrecks that have been found.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

LittleNipper — Why would I want a relationship with your Father? I don’t even like you. As for Jesus, from what I’ve read he may have been a charismatic preacher, or maybe just another religious fanatic, maybe a Jewish communist trouble-maker, or a genuine prophet. I’d like to believe he was the latter. But if he’s a friend of yours ...

 

[alang1216]

At least 10,000 years ago man wasn’t much different than modern man in physiological terms. i would expect they had the same distribution of intelligence that we have now, so I’m not going to limit what that intelligence might have produced.

. Our discoveries and knowledge are cumulative in nature. So if you cant think of any reason to limit what they might have produced, then you are a grade a fool.

Do you you understand the difference between intelligence and knowledge?

Obviously i do, and you do not.

Do you place any limits on what could have been produced in the year 1810? By your own statements you do not. Obviously that is stupid. It doesn't become any smarter or more valid to change the year to 8000 BCE.

You said something pretty dumb to support a dumb implication you made. You see what happens when you start digging...it just gets worse and worse.for you....

We are talking about ancient man and boats. Who lived near rivers and coasts. Do you not suppose he saw logs floating in the water moving with the currents? Do you not suppose he swam in the water and realized he could float? So is it that huge of a leap for the ones on the far right side of the log normal distribution of intelligence to make the leap of transportation on rivers or bays or even coasts?

It must be sad going through life seeking fights like you do.

Ancient man had boats since day one, they just didn't have any that could cross an ocean. So far as I know the Ark was unpowered. Great for lazily drifting, not so great for going somewhere specific.

 

[alang1216]

That was never in dispute. The ancients didn't even cross a sea if they could avoid it, they generally sailed within sight of land. Are you trying to say they had the ships to cross the Atlantic?

Still no explanation of how Sumerians and Egyptians ended up in different places?

Here is one:
" The Pre-Flood home of Noah and his family was in the area of Babylonia which was some 500 miles east from Mount Ararat, in what is today modern Turkey. After the flood they migrated back to their homeland and built cities. God then caused the confusion of languages which caused them to disperse into the world."

These people could sail across the seas. Thus, you are wrong. You have the history and still wrong. Otherwise, you would've been all over me like a rash.

I can give you the details if you want.

Were you expecting me to explain how Sumerians and Egyptians ended up in different places? I don't know how, recorded history doesn't go that far back. I only know they were there before the Flood and they were there after the Flood and it doesn't seem to have been noticed by them.

You said these people could sail across the seas. I think you're just making that up. What kind of boats did they have? Hint, archeologist have never found an ancient shipwreck capable of crossing the ocean.