Thread: God's Name

Originally Posted by Hanna
I don't think anyone in Europe is fanatical about religion these days..

Originally Posted by Ramil

And suddenly Sgt. Cold steps in )))

100-1, he is American.

Sgt Cold - I hear you, but this is an open forum and you are more likely to put people off by this kind of talk, than attracting them. Generally in Europe, the type of view that you express is considered totally un-PC and even un-Christian. It's pretty unusual among Christians here. I don't adhere to it and I respect Moslems.
Out of interest, are you a King James bible only supporter too?

There ARE some (very few!) Europeans with protestant fundamentalist Christian views, but they almost never preach it to others. I have come across it in the North of Scandinavia, and in Scotland. There was such preaching in the village where I went to school for 6 years. But this old-fashioned protestantism is totally different from American Evangelicals (who can be cool, I think, apart from their political opinions). I don't think Catholics are generally fundamentalist in the same way as some Protestants are. They seem to have a more relaxed view, even those who are quite observant.

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cold

When you look at the big picture the Bible tells the story of the battle against God by the Luciferian forces who want to destroy God's creation, Man. Lucifer was kicked out from the place of God and condemned to roam Earth "seeking whom he may devour." In doing so you will see that we on Earth must make choices and be ready to discern between truth and the counterfeits that Lucifer has made as traps for us.

Funny enough, 90% of the Christian fundamentalist image of the devil and of hell come directly from Dante Alighieri and Milton, and not from the Bible. And their sources are also mostly apocryphal and not in the Bible.

Dear people! Please do not make me to lock this topic.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Dear people! Please do not make me to lock this topic.

I was amazed at how this thread lasted as long as it did in such a polite and respectful manner on firestorm of a topic. Passions run deep and generations of old teachings and behaviors are hard to change; however, in the famous words of Rodney... Can't we all just get along?

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

Speaking of the Moon, I have to inform you.....

Hah... Moslem propaganda from the Axis of evil .... Sgt Cold, say a prayer and run for your life....

We are all getting in thin ice now since none of us is a theologian, as far as I know...! Personally I've said just about everything I known about Christian apologetics and Bible history. And I know very little about Islam.

I am aware that there have been some changes in the new testament, but it's nothing major. The whole King James Bible debate that is going on in the English speaking world is totally bizarre in my view.

Nobody KNOWS any of this for sure because it's not possible to prove it!
So there is no need to be too dogmatic about atheism, or about any faith.

All educated people know that religious texts are full of events that contradicts the law of physics etc.

About the idea that part of the Bible was handed down by God, and that some people were "filled with the Holy Spirit" etc, and wrote the Bible: Well; you can either say "nonsense!", "I don't know" or "I believe it!". I can sympathise with either opinion: It's a personal choice, and it's dependent on personality and upbringing how you ultimately relate to this question.

I believe in God for a mix of logical and illogical reasons. I recommend people to consider it. The people I know who are religious are generally a bit nicer than the people who are not. But I don't always behave in a completely Christian way....

Without religion who really decides what's right or wrong? The popular view? I.e. "Big Brother" participants.... and the tabloid press...? Advertisers, the State....? I don't trust any of those.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Nobody KNOWS any of this for sure because it's not possible to prove it!
So there is no need to be too dogmatic about atheism, or about any faith.

So then why do the literal and fundamentalist religious always threat their scipture as if it was absolutely true even in the absence of any evidence, whereas contradciting science which is based on a lot of evidence is seen as false? It's very noble to not be dogmatic about faith, but dogma is, after all, a religious term. At least atheists have some evidence going for them.

All educated people know that religious texts are full of events that contradicts the law of physics etc.

What about contradicting itself internally? Can you still believe that God created the world in six days and created man last, and ALSO created man first and plants etc. afterwards? Because that's in the Bible. Must be true. Both. And I thought, quantum physics was weird.

Really, one should read the Bible with one's brain switched on. Even the churches do. I have here before me the offical ecumenical German edition of the Bible as released by various official, church-supported organizations. Regarding the above Genesis dilemma, it says in a footnote to Genesis 2,4b -24 (my translation): "This is an older creation myth, in which the focus lies on the creation of humanity (...). The last editor of the pentateuch combines such different myths to show that he is not concerned with scientifical facts but religious ideas."

That's something all the literalists today are missing. And if it can be clearly demonstrated that such a text is internally inconsistent (never mind physics, simple logic and causality are sufficient), then it can't be literal truth. Provided we accept that there can be only one truth to reality.

That doesn't mean that someone believing in a certain god can't beahve like a decent person. And maybe some may even behave more nicely for it. But you can reach the same point by simple ethical thought and deduction, and that being based on reason rather than faith is in my view a much more consistent and stable view. Especially as there is nothing reasonable about denouncing other humans by dint of faith or race or origin. Religion does that. Atheism does not.

Do you realize that none of the freedoms you enjoy would exist today if during the period we call the Enlightenment people had not begun to think rationally about their situation and discard the thrall of religion for the most part? Europe would be no better than the Taliban regime if that had not happened. Really, I see no single society anywhere in history or even today, governed by the principles of a religion, which was free and safe for the individual and the surrounding societies.

Yes, that includes the USA, where they say that state and church are separate, but faith (and quite fundamentalist at that) seems to be a prerequisite for any politician who wants to be elected, and a president who declares war on Afghanistan and Iraq with words such as "God is on our side" is no better than a crusade-calling pope in the middle ages.

I agree with Robin that it is meaningless to quabble about this. Ultimately people believe what they want to believe.

One of the problems with the "research" into Biblical history is that most people working in this field have an agenda with their research. Either they are out to prove that the Bible is nonsense and that they are so clever to be finding proof of that. Or they are out to prove the opposite. I think both sides are guilty of fiddling with the facts. People like Richard Dawkins is a good example.

Clearly this is something you feel strongly about, Robin and I am not going to argue with you because I know that nothing good would come of it. Suffice to say that there are people who see it differently than you and they reckon they have good reasons to.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I agree with Robin that it is meaningless to quabble about this. Ultimately people believe what they want to believe.

One of the problems with the "research" into Biblical history is that most people working in this field have an agenda with their research. Either they are out to prove that the Bible is nonsense and that they are so clever to be finding proof of that. Or they are out to prove the opposite. I think both sides are guilty of fiddling with the facts. People like Richard Dawkins is a good example.

Clearly this is something you feel strongly about, Robin and I am not going to argue with you because I know that nothing good would come of it. Suffice to say that there are people who see it differently than you and they reckon they have good reasons to.

Yes, that's the easy way out. My father used to be like that for sixty years of his life. Then he took it upon himself to actually read something about what he had believed and found that in fact he had been wrong all along. It's not true that most people have an agenda with their research. Or at least you'd think that Catholic theologians would suppress such thoughts as I quoted from their bible, but they don't. That would be an agenda, but apparently they are interested in looking at the facts, and then modifiying their faith instead of the other way round.

Yes, there are people with an agenda, but there are also historians and theologians presenting theories based on evidence and without jumping to conclusions. Just read them.

All I ask of religious people is that they begin to think rationally about the tenets of their faith. Where do they have it from? What does it really teach? Faith is OK as long as it doesn't make you a bad person. But you can be a good person without it, too, and people with a faith should recognize the fact. The moment faith makes you think badly about or even hate and cause harm to other people, then it becomes a sickness of the mind.

I don't think anyone in Europe is fanatical about religion these days.. Excessive materialism and general stupidity is much more of a problem. I agree with some things that you are saying but not all.

An atheistic world doesn't appeal to me. What is there to aspire to other than materialism and physical gratification? Who is to say what's right or wrong if there is no religion? Then it's all subjective! Not to mention that your life and how you live it is meaningless. Another thing you'd miss out on is Christian love (I assume there is something equivalent in Islam and Judaism).

I choose to believe that there is something more, and a power wiser than man; plus that the world is designed and not a spectacular but ultimately meaningless and random chance.

I can't understand people who aggressively campaign for atheism.

Originally Posted by Hanna

An atheistic world doesn't appeal to me. What is there to aspire to other than materialism and physical gratification? Who is to say what's right or wrong if there is no religion? Then it's all subjective!

Well, as there is nothing all religions agree upon, it's subjective in religions as well. And as I said, I see no religion which does not produce hate towards others. You can easily come to ethical conclusions by philosophy alone, you don't have to fear any higher presence to be able to do that. Human rights are certainly no religious achievement but a humanist one. Our high general moral standards today, which allow for general human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of movement and so on were brought about because of the work of humanist thinkers but in spite of religion.

Not to mention that your life and how you live it is meaningless.

No, I can assure you, it's not. I see a lot of meaning in my life. A lot more than when religion tried to make me believe I was a worthless sinner capable only of sin and reduced to hoping fervently for absolvement after death.

Another thing you'd miss out on is Christian love (I assume there is something equivalent in Islam and Judaism).

No idea what "Christian love" is supposed to be.

I choose to believe that there is something more, and a power wiser than man; plus that the world is designed and not a spectacular but ultimately meaningless and random chance.

That's your right.

I can't understand people who aggressively campaign for atheism.

Well, there are people campaining for their religion to govern human life. I certainly don't want any religion to govern my life and cut down my freedom, so I am vocally (though not, I think, aggressively) against that. In my opinion, the world would be a much better place if we got rid of religion. I might be wrong on that count, but it would mean that man is even more worthless than religions make him out to be. I'm optimistic that education and a sound grounding in ethical thought without having hate groups like other nationalities or faiths to direct the aggression against would ultimately improve humanity.

I'm not religious, but I believe in God. If it was all up to me, if I were asked to choose whether I want to live in a world with a God or a world otherwise, I'm sure I'd pick the one with a God.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

I'm not religious, but I believe in God. If it was all up to me, if I were asked to choose whether I want to live in a world with a God or a world otherwise, I'm sure I'd pick the one with a God.

+1.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

I'm not religious, but I believe in God. If it was all up to me, if I were asked to choose whether I want to live in a world with a God or a world otherwise, I'm sure I'd pick the one with a God.

This looks like a first stage. It makes one's usual life more comfortable but may fail to help in a harder situation.

One recipe to go further is:
- to "look into the abyss until the abyss starts to look into you" (hi to Nietzsche!);
- to catch the glance (usually it requires many attempts) and keep it until you feel enough comfortable;
- to try to review your beliefs while keeping the feeling.

This kind of training usually leads to the faith of better quality but has a risk to obtain unexpected shift in beliefs, which may be in bad agreement with the traditions of your society.

Миша, зачем ты свой пост вытер? Там ничего, на мой взгляд, недопустимого не было. Хочешь я его восстановлю?

Originally Posted by Lampada

Миша, зачем ты свой пост вытер? Там ничего, на мой взгляд, недопустимого не было. Хочешь я его восстановлю?

Ничего особенного. Спать хотелось, подустал от сотрясения воздуха. Не восстанови, пожалуйста.