How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Is Religion a Virus of the Mind?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Is Religion a Virus of the Mind?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


100 posted 03-01-2004 10:59 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Brad:

My-my ... looks like my question triggered avoidance behavior.    

I asked:

quote:
Brad ... if Jesus did rise from the dead, how does that change your perspective on meaning?


I'm still interested in your answer.  If it helps, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, I wouldn't be a Christian - I might consider that natural theology has its merits, but I've always found that philosophical speculation of the Aristotelian sort required more assumptions than I am comfortable with making.

Jim

P.S. I can accept that you believe in NO GOD - but in making such a declaration, I believe it is inescapable that you must also declare you belief that (1) the personal arose from the impersonal, (2) matter plus time plus chance gave rise to mind, (3) something came from nothing and that potentials actualize themselves - essentially that non-being is the ground upon which being rests.

[This message has been edited by jbouder (03-01-2004 11:55 AM).]

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


101 posted 03-01-2004 11:33 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"... don't you think it even possible (which your being sure seems to preclude) that if He does exist, he would communicate to us at least some knowledge of Himself?"

~ Of course it is possible. However, whichever form of communication She would take would ultimately be interpreted by those whom She communicated with, thereby creating a god as known by the humankind.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


102 posted 03-01-2004 11:58 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Opeth:

God revealing Himself in a manner understandable by finite human beings is not the same thing as man creating God.  Yours is a fallacy of inversion.

Jim
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


103 posted 03-01-2004 12:04 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"God revealing Himself in a manner understandable by finite human beings is not the same thing as man creating God.  Yours is a fallacy of inversion."

~ Yeah, right... in one way only, I forgot.


jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


104 posted 03-01-2004 12:16 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Opeth:

History is to be interpreted, as to its meaning and significance, in terms that best fit the facts under analysis.  In legal-historical reasoning, facts in themselves provide adequate criteria for choosing among variant interpretations of them (paraphrasing John Warwick Montgomery here).  Divergent interpretations do not invalidate the facts - they merely call into question the means by which the interpretations were derived.

Jim

P.S. You still committed a fallacy of inversion - aren't you the one who once said, "Logic rules!"
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


105 posted 03-01-2004 12:24 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Just which facts are we talking about? Is it an actual fact that god revealed herself to humankind? I'll answer the question for you. No. Therefore, logically, no fallacy was commited.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


106 posted 03-01-2004 12:38 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
Just which facts are we talking about? Is it an actual fact that god revealed herself to humankind? I'll answer the question for you. No. Therefore, logically, no fallacy was commited.


Logical Fallacy #2 - Universal Negative Hypothesis.

It would take absolute knowledge to absolutely eliminate the possibility that God has revealed Himself in history.  To make this statement in the absolute sense would require omniscience.  Essentially, you would have to assume the place of God to absolutely disprove the actuality of His revelation of Himself to men (as you've attempted to do).

Jim

P.S. Your original statement still includes a fallacy of inversion, regardless of the non-facts in that statement.

P.P.S. As entertaining as this exchange is, I'd rather not lose the opportunity to continue this discussion with Brad in this thread.  If you want to challenge the factualness of divine revelation, perhaps you'd consider doing so in another thread?
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


107 posted 03-01-2004 12:44 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"It would take absolute knowledge to absolutely eliminate the possibility that God has revealed Himself in history."

~ For sure, however substitute God for alien, would you then still agree?  
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


108 posted 03-01-2004 12:58 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
"It would take absolute knowledge to absolutely eliminate the possibility that God has revealed Himself in history."

~ For sure, however substitute God for alien, would you then still agree?  


~Sigh~

Yes. Applying what I wrote earlier, a reputed alien encounter should be interpreted, as to its meaning and significance, in terms that best fit the facts under analysis.  Absolute certainty is always elusive in synthetic reasoning, but depending on the facts, it is possible to arrive at an answer that satisfies a significant burden of proof.

About starting that other thread ...?

Jim
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


109 posted 03-01-2004 01:06 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Start a thread about what?

If you'll excuse me... I partook in much celebration last night and am mentally not up to my normal speed.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


110 posted 03-01-2004 07:06 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Avoidance behaviour?

Probably.

A friend of mine a few years back asked if Christians acted, I don't know, more Christian, would I have left?

I responded that the idea probably would never have entered my head.

But in answer to your question, I would want to know how He was able to do that. In the early nineteenth century (I think), death was a fairly common misdiagnosis, so much so that bells were put on the outside of coffins in order to alert others to the fact that reports of one's death were sometimes premature.  
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


111 posted 03-02-2004 03:31 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Brad:

I appreciate your honesty.  It is interesting that, even when significant evidence exists affirming the authenticity of the core claims of the Christian Gospel, people still cite Christians not being "Christian" enough as a reason for disbelief.

Even though every Christian fails to measure up at times, I know many Christians who persistently strive to do good things and give of themselves to help those who need it most - for nothing in return.

Regarding your answer, if you would insist on a naturalistic explanation, I think the better answer would be that the disciples stole the body.  I find it difficult to belief that a swooned Jesus, severely beaten, crucified and stabbed, and buried in 75 pounds of spices and linens, could have had the strength to push a 1000+ lb. stone up an incline, escaped the guards posted at the tomb, and have cleaned himself up enough to make a convincing presentation to his disciples.  I dunno - since I do believe miracles can happen, I suppose it could have happened this way.  

Jim

P.S. You didn't really answer the question, by the way.  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


112 posted 03-02-2004 08:06 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, Jim, I guess I'm stuck. I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. Let's assume that the Resurrection did happen, that He rose from the dead because He was a miraculous being.

Does everything else that bothers me about Christianity suddenly change?

First,

quote:
Even though every Christian fails to measure up at times, I know many Christians who persistently strive to do good things and give of themselves to help those who need it most - for nothing in return.


Of course, there are good Christians in the world (There are a few that even post here from time to time. ). And I can deal with Christians failing sometimes. Given that the bar is so high, it would seem inevitable that they do. It's not virtue as such that I was talking about there (I admit it was a vague statement though).

How many times have I heard Christians describe themselves as unworthy of Christ's love? How many times have I heard, sometimes, in the same conversation an absolute confidence displayed that they know the TRUTH. Where did that humility go? I simply can't tell the difference between the need to witness for their own sake and the need to convince me for my sake or the need to convert me to what they believe for their sake.

Denise's most recent comment here is a good counter-example of this by the way (Personally, the best argument here that religion is not a virus.)

But this leads to my second objection: the argument from authority. Now, you and Stephan do a pretty good job of stepping around this one, but we all know that it's a logical fallacy. And, of course, most of us rely on it a lot of the time (How can we check everything?), but it's not a persuasive tool. And, unfortunately, it leads to some bizarre statements, an ever increasing myopic environment where only one source is considered valid (even if contradicted by many other forms of evidence) or where one's personal feelings are universalized and projected onto everyone else, but the other person's feelings, thoughts, notions are never considered. I don't mean to say that my feelings have actually been hurt, I mean that ultimately I don't think anyone's listening. And why should they, I realize. They already know the TRUTH.

At another website, I recently engaged in a debate over a distinction between methodological naturalism and what was called methodological theism. At first, I was greatly intrigued by the prospect (I suspected that it would be something like hermenuetics), but I soon discovered that there was very little that was methodological about this form of theism, it was simply another way of stating good, old fashioned Theism.

First, posit God. Second, posit Christ. Third, agree with everything I say and if you don't, you still aren't seeing the way a Christian sees it.  

It's a nice trick, but I soon pointed out that this was not significantly different from was usually being said. I was then accused  (albeit by a different person than the original debater) of a secular bias.

Really, I have a secular bias?   

More to say on this, but this comment has already gone on too long, so let me finish with my final objection.

Presumably, the resurrection of Christ would undergird all the metaphysical speculation about Heaven/Hell, the soul, the need for redemption, the final days, the Return, and paradise on earth. It's not so much that I disagree with any of this, it's that I don't understand most of it -- except perhaps as a hunch that there is something else, something better out there. And when I do get a decent analogy or description (something that I can actually glimpse), it's not the kind of place I would like to go.

However, I have my own hunch and it's along these lines by Valery:

quote:
Illusion is stimulation.
What we really think when we say the soul is "immortal" can always be conveyed in less ambitious terms. All metaphysics of this kind may be written off as inaccuracy, linguistic incapacity, a tendency to inflate thought gratuitously and, in short, to get from a phrase one has formulated more than one has put into it and expended in constructing it.
    

But my hunch could be wrong.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


113 posted 03-03-2004 06:58 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"Even though every Christian fails to measure up at times, I know many Christians who persistently strive to do good things and give of themselves to help those who need it most - for nothing in return."

~ Not for an eternal life with God? Christianity is all about, "What is in it for me?" Be honest. Why do most people "come" to Jesus?
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


114 posted 03-03-2004 07:02 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Brad,

Regarding the ressurection of Christ's body and the immortality of the soul, as I heard from a Catholic priest (just the other day), "Well, it is a mystery."

Thank you for clearing that up, father.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


115 posted 03-04-2004 04:44 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Opeth,

Why someone 'comes' to Jesus or why someone remains a Christian is a difficult question. Why someone leaves is just as difficult perhaps. Very few of us actually come to any general view of the world through rational deliberation, we already have our world view and then look for reasons for it.

Now by that, I don't mean we don't change. I think make lots of little decisions, a lot of little things happen to us, and that these little things and decisions accumulate over time. We then reflect on those little changes, and then rationalize whatever point of view or opinion that pops into our head at that moment.

I think this evolutionary model is a far better description, and, in fact promises a more satisfying life than the revolutionary one of revelation or reason. The scary part, for me, is that people do claim to make the jump, and the even scarier one that they want others to take their hand and jump with them.

As far as mystery goes, I like the fact the priests often say, "I don't know." The scary part is that many often say, "I don't know, but you should do what I say, you should believe what I believe, for your sake." I'm not suggesting that they don't believe what they profess to believe, I'm suggesting that many people (not just priests), claim knowledge that they don't have, and say that lack of knowledge is the basis for belief, claim knowledge that they can't articulate, or defer that knowledge to God.

The problems here are simple enough:

1. the first is a contradiction
2. the second is really a hunch, not knowledge
3. the third is an infinite deferral

With all that said, I don't think anyone should move in either direction toward belief or away from it, with one leap.

  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


116 posted 03-04-2004 04:50 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Brad?

I like what you just said, very very much.

Thanks.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


117 posted 03-04-2004 09:50 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Denise said;

quote:


No, poverty, disasters, natural or otherwise, and crises are not desirable, but I view them all as a necessary backdrop against which the good can be seen as good, so that we can appreciate what good is. Without the bad I don't think people can truly appreciate good.




When I read this Denise what I hear you say is that it was necessary for my son and his mother to die so that someone else could understand what happiness is.  I can't be offended by that because I know you and know that you don't mean it with any kind of malice -- I know you're trying to work out your philosophy just as all of us do our entire life.  The only reason I bring it up is because it may bear some re-tooling.  Many, many people will hear it the same way that I reflected it back to you.

Jim,

As far as I can make it is;

Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi.

(God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.)

But with a few caveats.  When I use the word God my paradigm is totally different.  And I'd have to say no to the entire Apostle's Creed.  If you want to talk about the Gospel of John though -- I think there are some worthy notions there.

Other than that -- there is probably very little difference between me and an Orthodox Christian -- in fact -- you could drop me off at an Episcopal Church on Sunday morning -- I could sing 'God of Our Fathers' (tenor -- or maybe the bass line), and discuss the sermon with the Parson over a chicken dinner.  

It might get lively though depending upon which wing of the Episcopal Church we're talking about.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


118 posted 03-04-2004 10:56 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
P.S. I can accept that you believe in NO GOD - but in making such a declaration, I believe it is inescapable that you must also declare you belief that (1) the personal arose from the impersonal,


I accept that. I think the personal, if I understand what you mean here, what Rorty might call private, arises from the impersonal. This impersonal I would call the social.

quote:
(2) matter plus time plus chance gave rise to mind,


Sure, except you've left out accumulated change through natural selection. Again, I think the difference between you and me is that you think one description is the right one, and I think multiple descriptions from multiple viewpoints can all be correct (and doesn't negate that some descriptions are wrong).

quote:
(3) something came from nothing and that potentials actualize themselves - essentially that non-being is the ground upon which being rests.


Ah, this is the tricky one. I think that 'something' does depend on 'nothing' (call it nothingness, non-being, differance, difference itself, or whatever) for its existence, but I'm not sure it is linear. Maybe a matter of co-dependency?

Still, at that level of abstraction, I really think are naive intuitions simply fall apart. It may very well be that all of our speculations, scientific, philosophical, or theological are nowhere near being an accurate description of this relationship.

quote:
What cannot be said must be passed over in silence.


--Wittgenstein

    
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


119 posted 03-05-2004 07:46 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Brad,

I enjoyed reading that reply #115.

"Why someone 'comes' to Jesus or why someone remains a Christian is a difficult question."

~ For sure. That is why I answer it by what I experienced in my lifetime. Practically every Christian I know of, has accepted Jesus for something in return, with the overwhelming majority accepting Christ in order to live forever/escape hell.

"Why someone leaves is just as difficult perhaps. Very few of us actually come to any general view of the world through rational deliberation, we already have our world view and then look for reasons for it."

~ I agree. For me, I was able to shed my worldview, maybe not entirely, but enough to rationally deliberate issues, facts, opinions, etc., and leave christianity.

"Now by that, I don't mean we don't change. I think make lots of little decisions, a lot of little things happen to us, and that these little things and decisions accumulate over time. We then reflect on those little changes, and then rationalize whatever point of view or opinion that pops into our head at that moment.

I think this evolutionary model is a far better description, and, in fact promises a more satisfying life than the revolutionary one of revelation or reason. The scary part, for me, is that people do claim to make the jump, and the even scarier one that they want others to take their hand and jump with them."


~ Well put.

"As far as mystery goes, I like the fact the priests often say, "I don't know." The scary part is that many often say, "I don't know, but you should do what I say, you should believe what I believe, for your sake." I'm not suggesting that they don't believe what they profess to believe, I'm suggesting that many people (not just priests), claim knowledge that they don't have, and say that lack of knowledge is the basis for belief, claim knowledge that they can't articulate, or defer that knowledge to God."


~ Yes. Again, well stated.

"With all that said, I don't think anyone should move in either direction toward belief or away from it, with one leap."

~ Neither do I, but then the majority of people will not ever want to move to begin with.  

~ I think what happened to me was inevitable. I was born and raised a catholic (of which after completely forsaking the faith due to what I am about to describe next, I now have a better opinion of and for good reason), attended catholic schools from grade 1 to graduation. It wasn't until I was about 11 that I found out that there were other religious beliefs in the US other than catholicism and judaism.  Sure, I knew of those "crazy" religions in other countries (India, Japan, etc), but dismissed those religons and people as ignorant and "below our level" tripe.

Talk about a limited worldview.

But when I joined the military and began to meet people from all across the US, when I moved to the SE, to the NW, and in between and conversed with people, my worldview began to expand. I traveled to other countries and learned about their cultures and religions, my worldview expanded even further... when I attended college and studied the histories of various nations, even further...

During all that time, I studied with protestants and many other people from various denominations.  Became a baptist, a pentacostal, and finally, after praying and studying realized that their had to be one true christian church... but the more I studied ancient cultures, the more opened my mind to other possibilities, I came to where I am now.

Sorry about the rant, but I was inspired by your reply.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


120 posted 03-05-2004 09:53 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Well I'll be the first to admit that possibly many of my thoughts could use a re-tooling, or at least my expression of my thoughts. I'm very sorry for your personal losses, L.R., and don't make light of them or anyone else's personal tragedies.

I guess "growth through pain" might be a better way to express what I was trying to convey. I guess I start from the vantage point of tragedy as an inevitable part of life and that being the case, what can we make of it for our betterment.

The devastating loss of loved ones is the bitterst pill of all. And I'd rather have them back than any 'good' (a deeper appreciation of life and a deeper cherishing of the loved ones that remain, that eventually surfaces) but we don't get to make those choices. As grief subsides we gradually can accept the 'good', or perhaps it is the slowly dawning 'good' that eventually eclipses the grief and helps us to cope with life without them?

I guess I just try to find a meaning or purpose in everything, even things that seem totally and completely devoid of any redeeming value whatsoever. And I believe that God does bring good out of bad, not that I always like it or necessarily agree with his viewpoint at the time!

I hope I've expressed myself a bit better this time around!
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


121 posted 03-06-2004 07:35 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Sorry, all.  There is much to respond to and free time hasn't actually been in abundance for me in Amish Country USA.

Brad:

quote:
How many times have I heard Christians describe themselves as unworthy of Christ's love? How many times have I heard, sometimes, in the same conversation an absolute confidence displayed that they know the TRUTH.  Where did that humility go? I simply can't tell the difference between the need to witness for their own sake and the need to convince me for my sake or the need to convert me to what they believe for their sake.


Sounds a little bit like a misunderstanding on the parts of both parties.  Doctrinally, I think a Christian may rightly say they are unworthy of God's favor in an actual sense.  Christians are declared worthy in a forensic sense - in other words Christ is our worth, and His righteousness becomes ours by imputation.

As for the Christians you describe, not everyone has an interest in exploring the rationale for his or her faith, just as not everyone has an interest in philosophy - this doesn't automatically make them wrong when they speak of what they "know" authoritatively, it just makes them annoying to people like you and I.  

quote:
But this leads to my second objection: the argument from authority...it leads to some bizarre statements, an ever increasing myopic environment where only one source is considered valid ...


I've written here before that success in finding answers to life's questions is very heavily dependent on the reliability of our sources.  I think what is important is that we test our sources vigorously so that the "authority" is grounded in fact.

quote:
First, posit God. Second, posit Christ. Third, agree with everything I say and if you don't, you still aren't seeing the way a Christian sees it.


Those crazy philosophical Christian apologists.  I've been trying to convert that ilk to the school of evidential apologetics for the better part of ten years now.  

quote:
Presumably, the resurrection of Christ would undergird all the metaphysical speculation about Heaven/Hell, the soul, the need for redemption, the final days, the Return, and paradise on earth.


Close, but most importantly, the Resurrection undergirds the fact that Jesus' death has meaning for us (as an atonement for sin) and gives us a factual basis on which to speak with confidences in regards to our redemption.  Furthermore, His being the "Firstborn of the dead" (in Christianese terms) provides me with a foundation on which I can believe that, one day - perhaps long after I die - I will be raised also.

There are more "practical" benefits also, like being a part of a community of people who earnestly want to do good - hey - even I need help sometimes.  

Regarding Valery's quote - I see where he (she?) is coming from, and I don't entirely disagree.  But my faith isn't grounded on ambitious terms, but in history.

Later you wrote:

quote:
With all that said, I don't think anyone should move in either direction toward belief or away from it, with one leap.


Neither do I.  The "leap of faith" is an unfortunate phrase born out of early Christian existentialism that has stuck.  For me, faith has been more of a natural step from facts I found to be trustworthy.  Granted, it didn't begin that way for me, but when the time came for me to honestly evaluate what I believe, I did my best to be thorough.

quote:
Sure, except you've left out accumulated change through natural selection. Again, I think the difference between you and me is that you think one description is the right one, and I think multiple descriptions from multiple viewpoints can all be correct (and doesn't negate that some descriptions are wrong)
.

I cannot say definitively that natural selection was not the means by which God brought life from non-life, mind from the mindless, etc..  But natural selection isn't really all that much about science as much as it is about historiography.  I agree that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the record itself, and not be arrogated by the critic to assume fraud or error unless the interpreter of the record disqualifies him or herself with contradictions or the record itself is disqualified by internal inconsistency or material contradiction.  In some instances, this means multiple descriptions from multiple viewpoints can be correct at times, but other times, depending on the nature of the evidence, we can weed out those conclusions that are less likely and/or wrong.

Opeth:

quote:
~ Not for an eternal life with God? Christianity is all about, "What is in it for me?" Be honest. Why do most people "come" to Jesus?


We bark because we are dogs, Opeth, we don't bark to become dogs.  You can't earn a free gift, only show gratitude for receiving it.

Hawke & Denise:

Tragedy and hard times are more often, to me, defining moments in our lives.  I don't mean to sound too much like Kid Rock in saying "only God knows why," but I think we make a mistake when we do ask "why" when we experience tragedy or suffering.  Hawke's loss is certainly greater than any I have experienced, but I have a feeling he came to the same realization I have after I experienced significant, albeit lesser, losses: things are as they are - the only question worth asking is where do I go from here?

Hawke:

LOL.  How can you throw out the whole Apostle's Creed and keep the Gospel of John?  Creation, Incarnation, ministry, death, Resurrection, etc.

Why is it that you can hint to your Episcopal background, yet I am know closer to actually knowing what you believe than before you offered the hint?  

Jim
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


122 posted 03-06-2004 09:25 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"We bark because we are dogs, Opeth, we don't bark to become dogs.  You can't earn a free gift, only show gratitude for receiving it."

Jim,

That dog does not hunt. Truth on this matter was arrived at my personal experience.  

Come to Jesus to avoid an eternal damnation = What is in it for you.

Come to Jesus to live for eternity = What is in it for you.

Come to Jesus and you will no longer suffer from (insert addiction, problem, etc., here) = What is in it for you.


Preachers, and all who walk "the faith" get others to join the club through the philosophy of GET.

Your analogy doesn't work.


"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


123 posted 03-06-2004 12:56 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Here is a better analogy...

The dog trainer bribes the dog with treats in order to train it to do what the trainer wants it to do. Without the treat for obedience process, the dog would not obey to the trainer.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


124 posted 03-06-2004 03:41 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"Is Religion a Virus of the Mind?

~ Getting back to the original question... I guess it all depends on the individual. To me, it is. And, all I ask is that the carriers quit trying to infect me with their virus. With life being so short, and the fact that it is my life, is that too much to ask for? (rhetorical question)



"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

[This message has been edited by Opeth (03-06-2004 05:08 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Is Religion a Virus of the Mind?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors