Is Anybody On Here A Hardcore Christian?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I told you today, Mr. Marshall, JESUS WAS REAL.

And I say

[pogo]

I told you today, Mr. Marshall, JESUS WAS REAL.

So was martin luthor king, another great speaker and even though millions admire him they dont beleive he was the son of god.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

So was martin luthor king, another great speaker and even though millions admire him they dont beleive he was the son of god.

Give it time. Maybe in 1000 years someone will write a book about how he healed everyone he touched and turned seawater into Gin and Tonics before sacrificing his life for the salvation of us all. Unfortunately the book will mistake his father for Spot the Dog, resulting in two thousand years of people reciting the teachings of Spot and how he got lost and Sally had to find him, before he went to school and eventually visited Sally's grandparents. Many wars will be faught and lives lost over those who believed that Spot was chasing the butterfly in the Gospel 'Spot Goes for a Walk' or whether he was attempting to eat it, thus indicating that the butterfly is in fact the embodiment of pure evil.

[1a2bcio8]

I understand where you're coming from and I apologise for not being nearly as good as you at expressing myself, Ben- you're the master! However, let me just say that I cannot say if there is or is not a god; the 'first cause' or whatever you want to call it. There really is no way of knowing (at the moment at least) just what caused the Big Bang and there will always be unanswered questions. However what I do know, in effectively certain terms in my own mind, is that the Christian beliefs in God, Jesus and the bible are a human created attempt at answering some of the questions which were unanswered at the time. To actually believe what is said in the book today is unbearable to me- they do not consider the existence of god as the 'first cause' but that he made the earth (in 6 days or so), made man, threw in a talking snake, we all sinned, he murdered the world (at least once), murdered children, men and women, sent his son to earth, had him killed (for our sins no less) aaaanddd... hasn't been heard of since. Those are the main points from what I've gathered but even that's enough for me to realise that Christianity, in the form of the bible, is nothing but a 1500 year old kids story to scare them into behaving themselves lest they feel the wrath of god.

Okay but consider the idea that the bible is a form of myth. A story that helps one become attuned to their environment. Take the bible in a literal sense and I'm with you as far as my philosophical uncertainty goes . But do we have to take it literally? I guess though that you are arguing against those who do take it in a literal sense but this doesn't mean you have to assume it is intended as a literal piece.

In actual fact, the tree of knowledge represents the dualism I have been talking about. It is a symbol for the state that man now finds himself in. The foundation of knowledge is dualistic. To "know" is to inescapably break the world up into parts (dog, water, carrots, whatever). Thus done we find good and evil. Or thus done, we make up a view of the world in terms of good and evil. Prior to this world view we were innocent (or instinctual). At this point the tree of life (immortality) is now hiden from us. This is symbolic of the dualism where we see in terms of life and death. Heaven and God are really when we learn to discard with the consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge (dualism). They are not literal but metaphysical things beyond our potential perceptions whilst living but are ways of 'seeing'. They are further symbols, like the tree of life and the tree of knowledge.

Coincidently in the book I've just started reading by Erich Fromm he states that in both the New Testament and the Old that attempts were made to avoid this type of idolatry where symbols were made literal. Warnings were laid out in the stories of Abraham and Moses that it is to miss the point to take the symbolism and worship it like an idol.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

But do we have to take it literally? I guess though that you are arguing against those who do take it in a literal sense but this doesn't mean you have to assume it is intended as a literal piece.

Don't forget that the book and it's teachings were created in a time when only a very tiny proportion of people (particularly the masses whom I imagine the book was aimed at preaching towards) could actually read or write and so I very much doubt it was intended as a deep philosophical journey to enable them to understand. It would've been written to instil fear in the people and ensure a placid and controlable society while giving them something good to look forward to if they behave themselves in life. Looking back on it with our knowledge today and looking for the 'hidden meaning' of the stories seems pointless as that would never have been the intention.

[pogo]

Spot the dog, Amen

[middleageman]

"Soooo, God is an iron sulphide cell? All hail the lord, and he shall henceforth be known as the almighty FeS." - monkeyseemonkeydo

LOL! Have you actually read any of my posts?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

LOL! Have you actually read any of my posts?

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a serious comment about your (or anyones) beliefs, just a sarcastic comment that popped into my head when I read your post .

† Praise FeS †

[beigemaster]

Give it time. Maybe in 1000 years someone will write a book about how he healed everyone he touched and turned seawater into Gin and Tonics before sacrificing his life for the salvation of us all.

You actually raise and interesting point. If I were to write a book claiming MLK performed miracles and died for us ect ect, no one would believe it (I'm assuming that's why you put "in 1000 years) and it would be nipped in the bud pretty quickly. The original copies of the Gospels were written as early as 40AD, the interesting factor here is these were written within the life time of original witnesses. That is to say that people who would read the original Gospels were around when Jesus was also around. It seems therefore that if any of the accounts of Jesus were completely fictional, then the Gospels would have been rejected or modified fairly early on.

made man, threw in a talking snake, we all sinned, he murdered the world (at least once), murdered children, men and women, sent his son to earth, had him killed (for our sins no less) aaaanddd... hasn't been heard of since. Those are the main points from what I've gathered but even that's enough for me to realise that Christianity, in the form of the bible, is nothing but a 1500 year old kids story to scare them into behaving themselves lest they feel the wrath of god.

This is one of the points I will address when I have time to write up a decent post/essay on this topic. For now, I will simply say that is a blatant straw man fallacy which is often used by the likes of Dawkins to convince the ignorant.

[Tomm]

You seem fairly certain that there is no God. You can't prove this though and so your statements ultimately rest on a 'similar' faith to the individual who is certain of his existence.

But this is the flying spaghetti monster theory. I tell you that all life's mysteries can be explained by a flying spaghetti bolognese with eyes - have faith! Hail FSM! With no actual evidence pointing you towards believing in FSM or something (*anything*) else, you wouldn't take me on my word. I can't speak for Dave but I find it bizarre that people blindly following something despite a lack of evidence.

Whether or not you believe in some higher power or not, current major religions don't really make sense in today's world. Perhaps the bible was created as a way of explaining unknown phenomena (explaining the metaphysical in terms of the physical) in light of poor understanding, but it's no longer appropriate because our understanding of the world has developed leaps and bounds.

That said, I'm also sure the bible is not meant to be read and taken literally. It teaches messages and principles in a language that people 2000 years ago could understand - there's not a whole lot wrong with that IMO. It's just that some people seem to take it completely literally and that causes trouble. There are stupid people in all walks of life that will blindly believe anything, it's not exclusive to Christianity.

[1a2bcio8]

Don't forget that the book and it's teachings were created in a time when only a very tiny proportion of people (particularly the masses whom I imagine the book was aimed at preaching towards) could actually read or write and so I very much doubt it was intended as a deep philosophical journey to enable them to understand. It would've been written to instil fear in the people and ensure a placid and controlable society while giving them something good to look forward to if they behave themselves in life. Looking back on it with our knowledge today and looking for the 'hidden meaning' of the stories seems pointless as that would never have been the intention.

Out of interest, who are the people trying to control everyone? You're following some cynical assumptions that as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for? Also, I am not doubting that elements of the bible are unpleasant although there are many moral codes that I would subscribe to. There are elements of a myth/religion that are apropriate only to a certain time and place. This doesn't neccesarily remove the core of what I think religion to be about - and the bible to be about. And this core is not philosophical, it is perceptual and ultimately a way of being and living - not about ideas.

It is fairly inescapable that when somebody comes to communicate about absolutely anything, that the way in which they do so will be dependent on the time and place in which they do it. A Native American from 200 years ago will talk and 'spin' communication in a way that relates to how he or she thinks. The way in which such a person might talk about a mountain will differ to the way I would talk about a mountain. Likewise, when the bible was written, despite at its core representing fundamentals about the nature of the human existence, its form was spun and added to by the culture of that time. This leads to the inclusion of ideas and practices that are suitable to that time and place but not neccesairly to another time and place. The bible contains absoulte (mystical) AND relative (certain practices/ceremonies/stories) parts. In essence, those relative parts may need to be changed/updated.

Myth and story telling has always been a popular means of communicating something other than a story within itself. Almost all fictional literature attempts to mean something beyond simpley the story. The best fictional work allows us to take a part away, integrate it and use it within our life. It enrichens us. The bible is little different in this sense, as are many other religious texts. Academic study of these texts strongly suggests the same core throughout with a cultural layer on top, so to speak. Religion arises through people coming to perceive certain non-conceptual (not ideas) truths about the nature of existence.

[1a2bcio8]

But this is the flying spaghetti monster theory. I tell you that all life's mysteries can be explained by a flying spaghetti bolognese with eyes - have faith! Hail FSM! With no actual evidence pointing you towards believing in FSM or something (*anything*) else, you wouldn't take me on my word. I can't speak for Dave but I find it bizarre that people blindly following something despite a lack of evidence.

Whether or not you believe in some higher power or not, current major religions don't really make sense in today's world. Perhaps the bible was created as a way of explaining unknown phenomena (explaining the metaphysical in terms of the physical) in light of poor understanding, but it's no longer appropriate because our understanding of the world has developed leaps and bounds.

That said, I'm also sure the bible is not meant to be read and taken literally. It teaches messages and principles in a language that people 2000 years ago could understand - there's not a whole lot wrong with that IMO. It's just that some people seem to take it completely literally and that causes trouble. There are stupid people in all walks of life that will blindly believe anything, it's not exclusive to Christianity.

You are right, I wouldn't take you on your word. But I wouldn't outrule it either, simply because what I have the most evidence for is my capacity to get things wrong. I make mistakes ALL the time. I see everybody else getting things wrong as well. We are limited in our sense to understand. So, as certain as i can be, Mr Spagehtti Monster isn't actually around but given also the consideration that I don't much know what's going on and I make mistakes all the time, I can't say for certain. There's too much evidence for my being too limited to make certain statements for me to outrule anything. Accepting modesty for such a thing insures me against easily outruling other potentials. If you'd said to a chap six hundred years ago than in the future there will be objects made of metal flying in the sky carrying people, he would have laughed at you. In fact, the individual who first thought of unobservable life (bacteria, etc.) was laughed at, shamed and had his career ended by the medical establishment. You don't ahve to act on something unlikely but there's nothing wrong with keeping it at an unlikely rather than a definitely not. It helps me avoid dogmatism and affirm a modesty which is clearly the case with being human. Be certain and you're thinking of yourself as something you are not. The fact is you are human.

As I mentioned above, it is true that a lot of religion isn't suitable for now but again this doesn't mean that aspects (the most important bits in fact) are not still relavent. There is something true of all humans and existence, regardless of time and place, that can be

Your last statement puts us on the same page

edit: I should say, I do think it worthy to try and offer the idea that God isn't a bearded chap and the idea doesn't come with much support. I just suggest that it be done with a modesty in accord with, as a human, not being able to be completely certain about much beyond the fact that we exist

Edited June 6, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

This is one of the points I will address when I have time to write up a decent post/essay on this topic.

Please don't bother on my account, I'll just ignore it completely and continue to blindly follow my new god, FeS.

Out of interest, who are the people trying to control everyone?

Ignoring the Crusades, for a very obvious example if you look at medieval england:

"In Medieval England, the Church dominated everybody's life. All Medieval people - be they village peasants or towns people - believed that God, Heaven and Hell all existed. From the very earliest of ages, the people were taught that the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them. Everybody would have been terrified of Hell and the people would have been told of the sheer horrors awaiting for them in Hell in the weekly services they attended.

The control the Church had over the people was total. Peasants worked for free on Church land. This proved difficult for peasants as the time they spent working on Church land, could have been better spent working on their own plots of land producing food for their families.

They paid 10% of what they earned in a year to the Church (this tax was called tithes). Tithes could be paid in either money or in goods produced by the peasant farmers. As peasants had little money, they almost always had to pay in seeds, harvested grain, animals etc. This usually caused a peasant a lot of hardship as seeds, for example, would be needed to feed a family the following year. What the Church got in tithes was kept in huge tithe barns; a lot of the stored grain would have been eaten by rats or poisoned by their urine. A failure to pay tithes, so the peasants were told by the Church, would lead to their souls going to Hell after they had died."

Stuff like that. The Church itself required control over the masses and got it through instilling fear into them of eternal damnation etc. For the people back then, in their uneducated status struggling to just survive, their belief in what they were told was complete and the lived in true fear of the consequences of not obeying the church and its teachings. That's just bullying on a massive scale to gain control and ensure some form of stability.

As I mentioned above, it is true that a lot of religion isn't suitable for now but again this doesn't mean that aspects (the most important bits in fact) are not still relavent.

But if I'm reading your points correctly, the aspects which you accept are still acceptable today are things which are simply down to common sense and morals, which are basically part of our genetic makeup. Don't kill people or be nasty for no reason? Don't rape? Don't steal? Don't get jiggy with your mates missus? I'd like to think that in the absence of religion the human race would still realise that those things aren't really acceptable and we know and are taught from an early age (with no link to god, religion or whatever) that these things are wrong and to be nice to each other.

[1a2bcio8]

Ignoring the Crusades, for a very obvious example if you look at medieval england:

"In Medieval England, the Church dominated everybody's life. All Medieval people - be they village peasants or towns people - believed that God, Heaven and Hell all existed. From the very earliest of ages, the people were taught that the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them. Everybody would have been terrified of Hell and the people would have been told of the sheer horrors awaiting for them in Hell in the weekly services they attended.

The control the Church had over the people was total. Peasants worked for free on Church land. This proved difficult for peasants as the time they spent working on Church land, could have been better spent working on their own plots of land producing food for their families.

They paid 10% of what they earned in a year to the Church (this tax was called tithes). Tithes could be paid in either money or in goods produced by the peasant farmers. As peasants had little money, they almost always had to pay in seeds, harvested grain, animals etc. This usually caused a peasant a lot of hardship as seeds, for example, would be needed to feed a family the following year. What the Church got in tithes was kept in huge tithe barns; a lot of the stored grain would have been eaten by rats or poisoned by their urine. A failure to pay tithes, so the peasants were told by the Church, would lead to their souls going to Hell after they had died."

Stuff like that. The Church itself required control over the masses and got it through instilling fear into them of eternal damnation etc. For the people back then, in their uneducated status struggling to just survive, their belief in what they were told was complete and the lived in true fear of the consequences of not obeying the church and its teachings. That's just bullying on a massive scale to gain control and ensure some form of stability.

Yeah I know a bit about this. This was true until Luther and some other chap wrote that people could be in communion with god less the church. Previously the church of that time said that God could only be reached through them and when associated with the release of money. However, this is somewhat later than the Jesus and the creation of the old and new testament. I don't doubt that bible and other religions have been and will continue to be used for personal gain (wealth, power, etc.), but this doesn't have to negate their original or fundamental intention.

Of course, I may be talking shit

But if I'm reading your points correctly, the aspects which you accept are still acceptable today are things which are simply down to common sense and morals, which are basically part of our genetic makeup. Don't kill people or be nasty for no reason? Don't rape? Don't steal? Don't get jiggy with your mates missus? I'd like to think that in the absence of religion the human race would still realise that those things aren't really acceptable and we know and are taught from an early age (with no link to god, religion or whatever) that these things are wrong and to be nice to each other.

No, the points I'm trying to indicate aren't simply ideas for how to live, they are something else. Something to be experienced but once experienced, lived through. It's difficult to say more than that other than it offers peace, joy and love. They are open to realising though. You just have to take the time and patience.

The trouble is that my words don't indicate anything in the common sense that we use language. What I discuss can only be known through actual direct experience. Anything else is wrong.

But yeah, in actual fact, we don't really need religion. These experiences are open to us regardless of the presence or absence of religion. But usually the religions have best described these experiences so as to help us attain them. Or in systems like Buddhism, there exists a practice structure to follow in order to attain these experiences. Interestingly and in opposition to the misunderstood meaning of faith we commonly see used in Christianity, Buddhism doesn't ever ask for that type of faith. It asks you to try and see for yourself. Fairly in line with the scientific, western mind, methinks.

edit: I hope there's no animosity in this discussion by the way?

Edited June 6, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

All points taken on board .

Interestingly and in opposition to the misunderstood meaning of faith we commonly see used in Christianity, Buddhism doesn't ever ask for that type of faith. It asks you to try and see for yourself. Fairly in line with the scientific, western mind, methinks.

Absolutely. I can't think of a single war started in the name of Buddhism, any extremist terrorist groups using Buddhism as an excuse to murder innocent people or any Buddhists claiming that 9/11 was the work of any kind of god. In fact the only slightly questionable side to Buddhism is the reincarnation thing which, although the cause of quite a lot of road deaths if I understand correctly, is a fairly nice way of thinking about things which doesn't use any threats of violence or pain to try and point followers to do good acts and lead a worthwhile life.

Christianity on the other hand...

Edit: No animosity intended at all Ben. Your posts often go over my head but it's very refreshing to hear from someone like yourself who can question both sides from most angles, rather than the blind faith shown by Christians and blind trust in proof, understanding and science which I'm afflicted by.

[Mark W]

Science is constantly being disproved by itself. Surely then, scientific 'fact', doesn't and will not ever exist, because it will always be bound by our present knowledge, understanding and the limitations of our intelligence?

Yes, but it always pushes our knowledge and makes us re-assess what we think, instead of basing all of our ideas on ancient books? It also means people are actually striving to understand what happens around us, instead of having an easy-access get-out clause such as "God did it" or anything like that. Even if it was God who apparently created the world, it's science that's created the modern world we live in.

I can't think of a single war started in the name of Buddhism, any extremist terrorist groups using Buddhism as an excuse to murder innocent people or any Buddhists claiming that 9/11 was the work of any kind of god. In fact the only slightly questionable side to Buddhism is the reincarnation thing which, although the cause of quite a lot of road deaths if I understand correctly, is a fairly nice way of thinking about things which doesn't use any threats of violence or pain to try and point followers to do good acts and lead a worthwhile life.

In fairness, Buddhist monks aren't super peaceful, although their teachings suggest they should be. Guess it's the same as the Muslim/suicide bombers link?

[guuuuuuuuu leeeeeeeee]

That is false. For one the bible is a proof that God exists along with millions of people through out the world that have seen and expreienced the power of God i.e. This girl who was at this big Christian camp (Easter Camp) sprained her ankle, And This guy prayed over it the same day and it was healed instantly and the next day she gave her life to God. I was there so I know its true.

What I dont get is why people would rather believe that when they die, thats it , they are just a corpse in the ground, over believing that if they are a Christian during their life on earth and they will be rewarded with eternal happiness in heaven.

I would rather have that than nothing!

Is Hannah Shucksmith and I the only believers on here?

bit late i know but...

no i think i do i mean there has to be something there that made this.

my dadds a christian youth worker who see miracles all the time and im pretty sure we saw some sort of angle before sounds a bit weird but we where walking down street somewhere near kendal and seen this guy with a big banner about god no one else seemed to notice so my dad started speaking to him (been a christian) and at the end the guy said god bless you or something along the lines now we walked down a wee bit not very far and he was gone we looked for him and no sign. after that my dad quit his well paid job for youth work and we have been receiiving the same amount of money now and i got a new little sister ( wich is consdidered a blesing!)

oh my goodness thats the longest post i have ever wrote

[beigemaster]

Please don't bother on my account, I'll just ignore it completely and continue to blindly follow my new god, FeS.

Ignoring the Crusades, for a very obvious example if you look at medieval england:

"In Medieval England, the Church dominated everybody's life. All Medieval people - be they village peasants or towns people - believed that God, Heaven and Hell all existed. From the very earliest of ages, the people were taught that the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them. Everybody would have been terrified of Hell and the people would have been told of the sheer horrors awaiting for them in Hell in the weekly services they attended.

The control the Church had over the people was total. Peasants worked for free on Church land. This proved difficult for peasants as the time they spent working on Church land, could have been better spent working on their own plots of land producing food for their families.

They paid 10% of what they earned in a year to the Church (this tax was called tithes). Tithes could be paid in either money or in goods produced by the peasant farmers. As peasants had little money, they almost always had to pay in seeds, harvested grain, animals etc. This usually caused a peasant a lot of hardship as seeds, for example, would be needed to feed a family the following year. What the Church got in tithes was kept in huge tithe barns; a lot of the stored grain would have been eaten by rats or poisoned by their urine. A failure to pay tithes, so the peasants were told by the Church, would lead to their souls going to Hell after they had died."

Stuff like that. The Church itself required control over the masses and got it through instilling fear into them of eternal damnation etc. For the people back then, in their uneducated status struggling to just survive, their belief in what they were told was complete and the lived in true fear of the consequences of not obeying the church and its teachings. That's just bullying on a massive scale to gain control and ensure some form of stability.

Although once again Ben has rather annoyingly answered this in an intelligent and reasonable manner, the only point I would add to his response is that all of what you have recalled came AFTER the development of Christianity rather than during it. As he said, it wasn't until Luther and the Reformation went back to the Bible's original meaning when all of the obvious corruption was taken away. In fact if you read about the original Church (not long after Christ) they actually adopted much more of a communistic society.

I find it genuinely difficult to discuss the concept of religion, mainly because (believe it or not) I actually share a huge amount thoughts and feelings that a lot of Atheists hold, mainly because I think "Religion" is a man made concept BUT the form of Christianity I believe in I wouldn't put under the banner of religion. As I have said before (and someone else mentioned it before) Jesus also hated religion and religious leaders.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Yes, but it always pushes our knowledge and makes us re-assess what we think, instead of basing all of our ideas on ancient books?

Exactly, what if the heretics had never had the chance to investigate the world in which we live in? If the church (sorry to go back there) had its way we'd still believe the Earth was the centre of the solar system, was flat and who knows what else? Thankfully we haven't burried our heads in the sand of an ancient text and never updated our beliefs and instead have made it our goal to further our own understanding independent of any kind of superior being.

after that my dad quit his well paid job for youth work and we have been receiving the same amount of money now

No comment.

the only point I would add to his response is that all of what you have recalled came AFTER the development of Christianity rather than during it.

But do you contest that 'the church' of medieval times was Christianity in an organisational sense? Or do you think that 'the church' of old was a corrupt organisation (almost mafia like in its structure) who simply saw the weakness in those who followed the Christian belief system and used that to impart power over the masses and 'work them over' for massive personal gain?

Also, respect for the last section of your post which although I don't know the ins and outs of your beliefs I can see that it must be kind of difficult to find acceptance in any of the 'camps'.

[1a2bcio8]

All points taken on board .

Absolutely. I can't think of a single war started in the name of Buddhism, any extremist terrorist groups using Buddhism as an excuse to murder innocent people or any Buddhists claiming that 9/11 was the work of any kind of god. In fact the only slightly questionable side to Buddhism is the reincarnation thing which, although the cause of quite a lot of road deaths if I understand correctly, is a fairly nice way of thinking about things which doesn't use any threats of violence or pain to try and point followers to do good acts and lead a worthwhile life.

Christianity on the other hand...

Edit: No animosity intended at all Ben. Your posts often go over my head but it's very refreshing to hear from someone like yourself who can question both sides from most angles, rather than the blind faith shown by Christians and blind trust in proof, understanding and science which I'm afflicted by.

Unfortunately Buddhism has been used as an excuse for violence. In that seeming need humans sometimes have to fight with the "other" (religion, political group and so on), even Buddhism whose peaceful intent is much more clearly stated than in other religions has still lead to territorial violence in South(?) Aisa.

But yeah, Christianity certainly trumps Buddhism in the sense of needless violence.

'tis good to hear there's no negativity in the discussion. I try my best not to impose my ideas but just put it out there and also to actually listen to what somebody else has to say, and as a consequence potentially revise my own ideas. I often fail at both and don't wish to frustrate others on that basis

[Pashley26]

Jesus theres some crazy long posts in this thread...

I tried bible bashing, but then I learnt that fact dispels faith.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Unfortunately Buddhism has been used as an excuse for violence. In that seeming need humans sometimes have to fight with the "other" (religion, political group and so on), even Buddhism whose peaceful intent is much more clearly stated than in other religions has still lead to territorial violence in South(?) Aisa.

Ah, fair enough. It was inevitable really that that would be the case.

Jesus theres some crazy long posts in this thread...

I tried bible bashing, but then I learnt that fact dispels faith.

Sarcasm/Irony noted.

It's not as simple as that though, as has been shown in this thread. For some people, faith is the be all and end all of everything and no amount of facts, evidence, proof or sense will make them question that faith. It's kind of the ultimate trump card, which in their minds is the only answer needed for any non believers. To the logical fact>faith but to someone with faith, faith=faith.

[1a2bcio8]

As I have said before (and someone else mentioned it before) Jesus also hated religion and religious leaders.

This reminds me of Buddhism when they say "kill the Buddha" at the point where somebody is beginning to idolize "the enlightened one". To get hung up on the image of the Buddha is to miss the point of Buddhism. Likewise to get hung up on an image of God or Jesus is to miss the point of what those 'things' are trying to indicate. Jesus clearly understood that becoming fixated on religion or people/symbols of authority would be a hinderance to what he taught. This also reminds me of the idea that idolization leads to the looking at the finger that points at the moon rather than looking at the moon that the finger points to. The moon is intended and is much more rewarding.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Pashley26]

Sarcasm/Irony noted.

It's not as simple as that though, as has been shown in this thread. For some people, faith is the be all and end all of everything and no amount of facts, evidence, proof or sense will make them question that faith. It's kind of the ultimate trump card, which in their minds is the only answer needed for any non believers. To the logical fact>faith but to someone with faith, faith=faith.

I personally don't think theres anything wrong with "faith", I do not believe there is nothing after life.

I believe your reborn, but you'll never know it. There can't be "nothing" after life, but then again I do believe you won't rot for a million years in hell giving satan a manicure and lugging smoldering rocks to form devil shrines, Or that you go "up" to heaven and sit on sandy beaches drinking cider being fanned by girls in sombreros.

Christianity has proven a destructive, controlling and unfair power through the ages. And going by the bibles teachings thats not what god intended at all, so he can't have that much influence any more ?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

There can't be "nothing" after life

Why not?

To go off topic, on the reincarnation front I've never quite got the route back up... If you're bad you come back as a newt or a dung beatle or whatever. How, precisely do you lead a prosperous and positive life as a dung beatle in order to work your way up to being a dog and eventually back to a human again? Am I missing something?!