Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why do conservatives ignore Jesus?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
Author
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 1:14pm
Originally posted by Ben Grimm Ben Grimm wrote:


If the bible is a mixture of god's truth and other stuff (let's call them "traps"), how do we know which parts of the bible are god's truth and which parts are traps?


I've found that this book does it rather well:

<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 2:38pm
"The task of our generation whether we our religious people or secular people is to build a global community where people of all persuasions can live together in piece and harmony." Great quote in that video. The only problem is that religion tends to act so much more as a wedge in society than it does bringing people together. It brings like-minded people together, but it creates a wall of 'us' and 'them.'
 
You absolutely do not need religion to be good people. You do not need religion to be accepting of others. You do not need religion to create that global community. Take Northern Ireland as an example. This battle between the Protestants and the catholics has gone on for near 150 years. While an argument could be mustered to say its no longer about religion, which I could agree with, that doesn't quite diminish my point. Catholics continue to stay a part of the Catholic community, Protestants must stay within the Protestant community. You are not socially allowed to inter-marry, go to the same schools, etc. Religion is used as a wedge to this day, despite the fact that the battle more recently has become about power, wealth, economics, etc.. Ideally, the two communities would slowly merge through intermarriage and children going to the same schools which would have helped raise tolerance in coming generations. But the 'us' and 'them' ideal that has been set up prevents that from happening and so the conflicts continue between two distinct groups instead of being diluted out.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
Ben Grimm View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2009
Location: Awesome
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben Grimm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 2:52pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Originally posted by Ben Grimm Ben Grimm wrote:


If the bible is a mixture of god's truth and other stuff (let's call them "traps"), how do we know which parts of the bible are god's truth and which parts are traps?


I've found that this book does it rather well:

 
lol
It's Clobberin' Time!
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 3:20pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:


Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

In the religion of 'No Religion'.
And not collecting stamps is my favorite hobby.


So in the minds of many here who are pushing the agenda of no religion within the society that group thought in itself is not a religion by 'definition'.


re⋅li⋅gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.


So when a group thought places the state or individual in the role of 'super human' agency (government) or individual into the role of 'diety' that is not a religion? And then this group thought is then 'mandated' upon the non-believer (true faith of religion) ie.
the 'seperation of church and state' foe example. That new belief system forcing thier belief system on others is just as bad as true what we call religion (Catholic, Islam, Buddahism, etc) attempting to force that view on the masses.

Authors for years have used this battle in society to blame all the faults on society on what they call 'organized religion'. Yet fail to place thier belief into, no religion, another mass or group thought process, and then demand that belief be forced on the remainder of society.

Yes, the mass belief system of removing any and all forms of religion from the society, that does not conform to thier mass belief system of no religion, is in itself by definition a "Religion of No Religion".

I seriously doubt that when the phrase " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", was written into the Constitutions' Bill of Rights' that insividuals or groups of individuals would use that phrase to remove entirely 'religion' from within the society. And if removed what mass belief system would be used in the place of religion to give the populace solace, and a general direction in thier behavior and thought. Organized religion was the foundation of man's law, without law mankind is not mature enough to survive. But forcing a belief system totalitarian upon those who have a faith differant than the one the power of government feels they should impose leads to the destruction of that society. Every culture, Empire or Society that demanded the 'religion' be removed from that society, and replaced by a 'cult of personality' of the individual in charge, or a mass belief system (National Socialism/Communism)fell into disrepair culturaly and eventual fell.

Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 3:24pm
If you are saying that agnosticism and atheism are religions based off of the dictionary definition, then I guess you concede that there are snipers in paintball, no?
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 3:25pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

If you are saying that agnosticism and atheism are religions based off of the dictionary definition, then I guess you concede that there are snipers in paintball, no?
 
Duh, what else would you use that super chromium barrel for?
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 4:12pm
Originally posted by Ben Grimm Ben Grimm wrote:

Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Originally posted by Ben Grimm Ben Grimm wrote:


If the bible is a mixture of god's truth and other stuff (let's call them "traps"), how do we know which parts of the bible are god's truth and which parts are traps?
I've found that this book does it rather well:

 

lol


Come now, you must admit that Jefferson distills the essence of Jesus of Nazareth's teachings without all the mystical mumbo-jumbo. Just don't read too far into like the conspiracy theory kooks (*cough* Dan Brown's readers *cough*) and you're fine. ;)

Edit:

Of course, if you want to be even more well rounded, add in the Nag Hammadi library and sift it all together and you get a pretty good idea of what was going on.

Edited by tallen702 - 12 November 2009 at 4:20pm
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 4:56pm
Funny thing about agnostics/atheists vs religion, most of us don't follow religion because there is 0 proof what so ever in favor of god. Admitted fundamentalists atheists are no better than a religious fundamentalist, however, most of us follow what evidence and reason tell us. Religion however makes it a specific point to make faith a virtuous quality. Its somehow more righteous to follow something without reason and evidence than to follow something because thats what the proof points toward.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
jerseypaint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3649
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jerseypaint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 5:04pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Funny thing about agnostics/atheists vs religion, most of us don't follow religion because there is 0 proof what so ever in favor of god.

Not true. Though no empirical evidence exists, rational thought does add proof to there being a God.

BTW: I just finished Descartes' Meditations...can you tell?

Edited by jerseypaint - 12 November 2009 at 5:08pm
Back to Top
Ben Grimm View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2009
Location: Awesome
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben Grimm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:



So when a group thought places the state or individual in the role of 'super human' agency (government) or individual into the role of 'diety' ...
 
Who is doing this?  Stalin and Mao, maybe, and Idi Amin, but that's about it.  Certainly not your run-of-the-mill atheist.
 
 
Quote ...the 'seperation of church and state' foe example. That new belief system ...
 
Seperation of church and state is not a belief system, but a political principle that is completely independent of religious beliefs.  People of all faiths (or lack thereof) support this political principle.
 
 
 
Quote But forcing a belief system totalitarian upon those who have a faith differant than the one the power of government feels they should impose leads to the destruction of that society.
 
... which is exactly why I (and others) support the seperation of church and state.  Failing to seperate the two carries a threat of thought police.
 
 
Quote Every culture, Empire or Society that demanded the 'religion' be removed from that society, and replaced by a 'cult of personality' of the individual in charge, or a mass belief system (National Socialism/Communism)fell into disrepair culturaly and eventual fell.
 
(a) this is compound, (b) you cannot possibly have evidence to support this sweeping claim, and (c) it is trivially true anyway:  every culture, empire or society eventually falls, regardless of its nature.

 
It's Clobberin' Time!
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by jerseypaint jerseypaint wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Funny thing about agnostics/atheists vs religion, most of us don't follow religion because there is 0 proof what so ever in favor of god.

Not true. Though no empirical evidence exists, rational thought does add proof to there being a God.

BTW: I just finished Descartes' Meditations...can you tell?
Oh?
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
jerseypaint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3649
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jerseypaint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 5:40pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by jerseypaint jerseypaint wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Funny thing about agnostics/atheists vs religion, most of us don't follow religion because there is 0 proof what so ever in favor of god.
Not true. Though no empirical evidence exists, rational thought does add proof to there being a God. BTW: I just finished Descartes' Meditations...can you tell?
Oh?

I'm just gonna go for the cop out and say read the book. I'm too tired as of now to explain Descartes.
Back to Top
Ben Grimm View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2009
Location: Awesome
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben Grimm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 5:43pm
Originally posted by jerseypaint jerseypaint wrote:

  Descartes.
 
I always thought Descartes bootstrapped that part.  Everything past cogito ergo sum was a stretch, IMO.  But hey, what do I know.
 
At least he didn't go full retard like Berkeley.
 
 
/lateral shift
It's Clobberin' Time!
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 6:54pm
Originally posted by jerseypaint jerseypaint wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by jerseypaint jerseypaint wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Funny thing about agnostics/atheists vs religion, most of us don't follow religion because there is 0 proof what so ever in favor of god.
Not true. Though no empirical evidence exists, rational thought does add proof to there being a God. BTW: I just finished Descartes' Meditations...can you tell?
Oh?

I'm just gonna go for the cop out and say read the book. I'm too tired as of now to explain Descartes.
Not cool.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
jerseypaint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3649
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jerseypaint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 7:02pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Not cool.
I know. But philosophy is a tiring subject to explain.
Back to Top
Ben Grimm View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2009
Location: Awesome
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben Grimm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 7:37pm
Not the best summary in the world, but the basic idea is there:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy 
 
Descartes is significantly more persuasive than Wiki makes him out to be, however.
 
It's Clobberin' Time!
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 November 2009 at 11:08pm
Sorry, been incredibly busy, otherwise I would have responded sooner.  Time for the red ink I suppose . . .
 
Quote
Everyone will have different perspectives on the Bible and God, that is why there is no teacher's edition, that is why there are so many different forms of Christianity.  God's got the teacher's edition, which means we'll find out who was right when we're dead.  Maybe the Methodists have it right, maybe the Mormons, maybe the Evangelicals, maybe the Buddhists, maybe even the Atheists, no one knows.  
 
Ah, but people DO know.  Specifically, the Methodists know, the Mormons know, the Evangelicals know - just ask them.  They will tell you. 
 
My point is yours - that in fact nobody knows, and that everybody cannot possibly be right.  But that doesn't stop people from bedrock faith that THEIR church has it right and everybody else is going to hell - even when, in the case of christians, they are all working with the same information (the bible).
 
The simple fact that people even think there IS a "correct" interpretation of the bible is lunacy - or, more specifically, that anybody could ever possibly know whether their interpretation was the correct interpretation.
 
And in this regard, the theologian is just as ignorant as I, and no amount of studying could ever change that.
 
You and I are are in agreement, but coming to completely different conclusions.  You consider the lack of universal agreement to be a sign of religion being "wrong" (or at least that is the impression you give).  I consider it to be proof that religion is something personal.  I'm not a fan of churches specifically because I feel like they take from that personal relationship with God. Instead of reading the bible and pondering what it means to you, you're being told to sit down and be told what it means to you.

Nowhere have I argued that Theologians have it right in this thread.  However, Theologians can look at how the Bible was written, how the Christian church was formed, where laws came from, and they can try to put some of the Bible in context.  If they are right or wrong is clearly a matter of opinion and belief, but they do provide an interpretation the same as any preacher or priest.

A person's relationship with God is personal.  What I believe is the most sensible thing to me.  To anyone else it may seem to be pure idiocy, and vice versa.  Despite this, Christians will continue to discuss and debate the meaning of the Bible and God's message.  It is not meaningless, or lunacy to argue why one's views are right to them.  On the contrary it can provide new perspective to others and open minds.

I'm surprised you haven't made note of the clear parallel between this and Politics.

Quote Very vaguely and loosely related, that is why religion doesn't concern itself with the physical world and why it and science are unrelated. 
 
I disagree with every part of this statement, but that is perhaps for a different discussion.
 
In this discussion it is indeed out of place, I mostly threw that out to highlight that religion is personal.  That being said, however, I stand by this view.  I am curious where you disagree though.

Quote I go back to my earlier point about having a personal relationship with God.  The Bible is merely a framework.  We pray and reflect to understand what it means. 
 
Here also we agree.  The bible simply CANNOT be the source of faith or truth, because we cannot objectively know what it means.  The source of faith has to be faith itself.
 
And this is why claims that "behavior X is a sin because the bible says so" are meaningless.

The Bible has almost nothing to do with faith.  The common misconception that faith is accepting the Bible as truth without proof (rhyme unintended), or believing in God without proof is bupkis. 

Sin, however, is worth its own discussion.  It's far too trivial to say that Sin doesn't exist.  It certainly does, but how it applies is something I cannot quite understand.

[/QUOTE]
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 November 2009 at 11:08am
Originally posted by jerseypaint jerseypaint wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Not cool.
I know. But philosophy is a tiring subject to explain.
I'll have to check it out. Descartes was an intersting man. Contributed to a whole bunch of differant fields.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
Ben Grimm View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2009
Location: Awesome
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben Grimm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 November 2009 at 11:45am
Darur - I think you and I are almost completely in agreement.
 
Quote You consider the lack of universal agreement to be a sign of religion being "wrong" (or at least that is the impression you give).  I consider it to be proof that religion is something personal.
 
I actually agree with your conclusion.  I do not believe that religion is wrong, simply subjective.  I object to the idea that somebody will tell me that their interpretation of bible (or veda, or whatever) is somehow more correct or more valid than mine.  Religion, ultimately, is a matter of faith, and faith, ultimately, is an intimately personal and subjective thing.
 
This, to me, is quite different from politics.  While there are certainly many legitimate political positions, there is a certain amount of objectivity in policy goals and effectiveness.  Not true for religion.
It's Clobberin' Time!
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 November 2009 at 11:45am
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

The Bible has almost nothing to do with faith.  The common misconception that faith is accepting the Bible as truth without proof (rhyme unintended),


pro-tip: "Proof" and "truth" do not rhyme with each other.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.