It needs to be carefully defined, yes, because of how it's used to control people. Any time someone demands or expects respect from others, I just want to say "WHY. WHAT did you do to deserve this thing?" Veterans and old people are especially prone to this behavior.
Why don't you? Again, why does it need to be carefully defined for you to say such a thing?
Does respect really need to be carefully defined in order to use it, though? To me it simply means I have a certain awe for a certain person. By itself this doesn't mean much, but by uttering that I respect him he'll know I like what he's doing/has done and will also know that I'm at least partially likeminded and probably open to help him if he ever needs my assistance. And what d'you think is easier to say? That, or "I respect that"?
I think GNA is referring more to the fact that religion will inevitably die out from people coming to their senses because we live in the second millennium, not the stone age. But that's probably wishful thinking.
To be fair, I don't think this will ever happen, and I'm not sure if that's even a bad thing. Eiviyn said earlier in this chat that the 'default' standpoint to assume god doesn't exist, just as it's the default standpoint to assume invisible pink unicorns don't exist. The more I think about that, the more I disagree with it. Sure, Eiviyn probably meant 'god' as in 'the christian god' when he originally typed it, but the fact remains that there HAS to be some kind of unmoved mover. And people will always worship that kind of power. They should, even. Unless of course we don't understand one bit about the concept of time and end up finding out we live in some kind of infinite loop somehow.
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
C. S. Lewis
If somebody gives me proof that the christian version of God and the afterlife exists, I'd abandon everything I'm doing now and start living like a monk. So my question to you is...what's stopping you from doing that? If your rewards in an infinite paradise are proportional to your behavior in your short finite lifetime on this rock, then you should be on your knees praying glorifying god every waking moment. If you're absolutely certain that God exists, you're wasting your time typing on this forum, making maps, and having any pretensions of living a fulfilling and successful life. You have to pick whether Christianity is of infinite importance, or zero importance.
Help me place that quote. Wasn't Lewis a catholic? Why would any catholic who isn't a monk say such a thing?
You're going to look pretty stupid when it turns out that Hindus picked the right one.
Whenever someone says something like this I think of that South Park episode where there's a bunch of guys entering hell and one says "I shouldn't be here, I was a devout Christian all my life!". The hell spokesman replies that that didn't matter and when someone asks "well, who gets into heaven then?" the spokesman checks his pad and says "I'm sorry guys, it was the Mormons... The Mormons got it right folks!". I wish that bit was on Youtube.
You seem really ... 'defensive'? Confident? Not sure what the right word is. Yet you do seem to say that overall you don't judge others but simply think god will do so in the end. While it's obviously your choice if you want to enter in the debate here... why would you want to if your main attitude is that you do not care? I can't mingle those two.
That they won't continue to 'rise' is a point of view I can understand, but why would you say they'd go downhill?
That said: I have no idea what's going to happen to our morals in the future. I'm not even sure if they have been rising. All I know is that brutality has lowered, overall. I guess you could argue very well that they have risen if you pick extremes; overall, the average man seems to feel a lot worse about the idea of rape than the average man 2000+ years ago. I won't go as far as to make any claims on the subject, though - I'm just observing.
I hate this argument. The "If there is no god, how do we know what's right and wrong?"
Do you really believe that prior to Mt. Sinai, people ran around thinking rape and murder were okay? That they stood around cooing in amazement and wonder when Moses brought the commandments down?
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but... yes? The further we go back in history the more we see violence become normal. 20th century: violence against women was 'understandable'. 18th-19th century: violence against blacks was 'understandable'. 17th-16th-15th century: raping your enemies' women was understandable. Jump back to the roman ages and slavery was acceptable, as was forcing these slaves to fight to their deaths. I'm not sure how innate our morals are, to be fair. I don't think per se that today's man is morally better than yesterday's man, but it does seem pretty clear that excessive violence, slavery, sexual abuse and similar acts become both more common and more accepted as you look further back in time.
Oh, yes, I understand what you are saying now. For the great majority of people, the gospel of Jesus christ will be preached to them before the end comes. They can accept and repent, or refuse and continue in their godless ways and wickedness. I commented on the ignorant in my previous post. So, indeed the post you originally quoted from me did not include that element of true ignorance(aka dying at a very young age, never hearing the gospel etc) Again, for the majority of the world:
So then your point is indeed that anyone who doesn't 'accept god' ('become a christian' or whatever that may mean) will be smited, except those who have never had a chance to reform? Which basically means you're also telling me I'm in for a ticket downwards unless I convert between now and the moment I die. Is that correct?
Your reasoning works for me, but then the post I originally quoted seems a bit weird, no? I quoted it specifically because I thought you were saying "you either accept god and [have a chance to] get into heaven, or you don't and automatically go to hell". What then did you mean with "In all fairness, we are given choice to either accept or reject God. Both options have their end results." ?
Wasnt this just be "do you believe in something and why"
If everyone were to just answer that question and bugger off the thread'd be boring as fuck. It'd be a collected list of people on mapster who consider themselves religious. Might as well read a dictionary or phone book. It's the discussion that makes it fun.
4. The promise of eternal life is valid if you believe and receive that truth, and start living your life for God. In all fairness, we are given choice to either accept or reject God. Both options have their end results.
This is something I've never understood. Why would there be two options? What if I honestly just don't know? I can't imagine any God would be so terrible as to leave everybody in complete doubt and then in the end punish everybody who didn't blindly believe in him. It might sound like a lazy way out, but I do kind of expect God, if he is real, to forgive at least agnosts upon death. I can imagine if he'd punish outright atheists or people who believe in a 'pagan' God, or heretics or satanists or such, but why agnosts?
I agree. It's more accurate to call it the result of childhood indoctrination and social pressure. You'd laugh the bible off if you could read it with neutrality. It's really a hilarious book.
I honestly recommend that you sit down and read the bible from an impartial viewpoint.
I find this entire post slightly ironic, but aside of that... you can't possibly be serious. You can easily claim that a lot of religion is the result of childhood indoctrination and social pressure and end up being right, but the way you're putting it forward you're acting as if there ARE no smart religious people. If you honestly believe that you're missing out on SO much of the world. If you're talking in the more general sense like I mentioned, there is no reason for you to be making this posts; I could make the same complaints about metalheads, politicians, activists, or really just pretty much everyone that can be called a group.
You're fun to argue with though, I'll give you that. And I don't even mean that to be demeaning.
"You can't do it with a maths book, why can you do it with the word of god?"
You don't get to make your own personal bible edits. Either the King James is the word of god, or it's not. If, as you say, it's not, then don't attempt to defend the assertion.
Wait, what? You're saying that there's only one possible translation of every age-old original transcript we have and that everything in it is meant completely literally or is otherwise completely false?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why don't you? Again, why does it need to be carefully defined for you to say such a thing?
@Saltpeter: Go
Does respect really need to be carefully defined in order to use it, though? To me it simply means I have a certain awe for a certain person. By itself this doesn't mean much, but by uttering that I respect him he'll know I like what he's doing/has done and will also know that I'm at least partially likeminded and probably open to help him if he ever needs my assistance. And what d'you think is easier to say? That, or "I respect that"?
To be fair, I don't think this will ever happen, and I'm not sure if that's even a bad thing. Eiviyn said earlier in this chat that the 'default' standpoint to assume god doesn't exist, just as it's the default standpoint to assume invisible pink unicorns don't exist. The more I think about that, the more I disagree with it. Sure, Eiviyn probably meant 'god' as in 'the christian god' when he originally typed it, but the fact remains that there HAS to be some kind of unmoved mover. And people will always worship that kind of power. They should, even. Unless of course we don't understand one bit about the concept of time and end up finding out we live in some kind of infinite loop somehow.
Help me place that quote. Wasn't Lewis a catholic? Why would any catholic who isn't a monk say such a thing?
Dude...
No. Just....
Christ somebody shoot me.
Whenever someone says something like this I think of that South Park episode where there's a bunch of guys entering hell and one says "I shouldn't be here, I was a devout Christian all my life!". The hell spokesman replies that that didn't matter and when someone asks "well, who gets into heaven then?" the spokesman checks his pad and says "I'm sorry guys, it was the Mormons... The Mormons got it right folks!". I wish that bit was on Youtube.
@EternalWraith: Go
You seem really ... 'defensive'? Confident? Not sure what the right word is. Yet you do seem to say that overall you don't judge others but simply think god will do so in the end. While it's obviously your choice if you want to enter in the debate here... why would you want to if your main attitude is that you do not care? I can't mingle those two.
@Doubleclick123: Go
That they won't continue to 'rise' is a point of view I can understand, but why would you say they'd go downhill?
That said: I have no idea what's going to happen to our morals in the future. I'm not even sure if they have been rising. All I know is that brutality has lowered, overall. I guess you could argue very well that they have risen if you pick extremes; overall, the average man seems to feel a lot worse about the idea of rape than the average man 2000+ years ago. I won't go as far as to make any claims on the subject, though - I'm just observing.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but... yes? The further we go back in history the more we see violence become normal. 20th century: violence against women was 'understandable'. 18th-19th century: violence against blacks was 'understandable'. 17th-16th-15th century: raping your enemies' women was understandable. Jump back to the roman ages and slavery was acceptable, as was forcing these slaves to fight to their deaths. I'm not sure how innate our morals are, to be fair. I don't think per se that today's man is morally better than yesterday's man, but it does seem pretty clear that excessive violence, slavery, sexual abuse and similar acts become both more common and more accepted as you look further back in time.
Let me just leave this here for a giggle.
So then your point is indeed that anyone who doesn't 'accept god' ('become a christian' or whatever that may mean) will be smited, except those who have never had a chance to reform? Which basically means you're also telling me I'm in for a ticket downwards unless I convert between now and the moment I die. Is that correct?
@EternalWraith: Go
Your reasoning works for me, but then the post I originally quoted seems a bit weird, no? I quoted it specifically because I thought you were saying "you either accept god and [have a chance to] get into heaven, or you don't and automatically go to hell". What then did you mean with "In all fairness, we are given choice to either accept or reject God. Both options have their end results." ?
@madlibrarian: Go
I somehow hear Morgan Freeman's voice saying that. Curious where it's from now, I feel like I've heard/seen it but can't recall it.
If everyone were to just answer that question and bugger off the thread'd be boring as fuck. It'd be a collected list of people on mapster who consider themselves religious. Might as well read a dictionary or phone book. It's the discussion that makes it fun.
This is something I've never understood. Why would there be two options? What if I honestly just don't know? I can't imagine any God would be so terrible as to leave everybody in complete doubt and then in the end punish everybody who didn't blindly believe in him. It might sound like a lazy way out, but I do kind of expect God, if he is real, to forgive at least agnosts upon death. I can imagine if he'd punish outright atheists or people who believe in a 'pagan' God, or heretics or satanists or such, but why agnosts?
I find this entire post slightly ironic, but aside of that... you can't possibly be serious. You can easily claim that a lot of religion is the result of childhood indoctrination and social pressure and end up being right, but the way you're putting it forward you're acting as if there ARE no smart religious people. If you honestly believe that you're missing out on SO much of the world. If you're talking in the more general sense like I mentioned, there is no reason for you to be making this posts; I could make the same complaints about metalheads, politicians, activists, or really just pretty much everyone that can be called a group.
You're fun to argue with though, I'll give you that. And I don't even mean that to be demeaning.
Wait, what? You're saying that there's only one possible translation of every age-old original transcript we have and that everything in it is meant completely literally or is otherwise completely false?