People who believe in god are broken

[SplitInfinity]

John Cuthber,

 

You bring up a good point. How many people need to be enlightened on a subject, inorder for it to be worthwhile, or a step forward.

 

There are many insights I have had along the way, in 59 years, that were a step forward for me, that were very much like me talking to myself, with nobody else listening. The idea, with only one holder.

 

If one were to imagine something mattering anyway, to the greater reality, in the face of mortality, and solitude, this would not be unlike a belief in God. That one is obligated to reality, somehow completely in its possession and responsible for it. The one who speaks and the one who listens. The one who it matters to, and the one that matters.

 

How may people need to hear a thing, or say a thing, in order for it to be considered a step forward?

 

Why should seeing my wife give birth to my daughter be such a wonderful thing, and such a huge step forward, when such a thing has already been done billions of times, and too many of these wonderful steps forward will overpopulate the Earth and cause its ruin?

 

I am thinking that a metaphysicist commenting in the woods, with nobody to hear her, is a good step forward for the metaphysicist. And if this is true, and it matters to anybody, other than the metaphysicist, then the metaphysicist is not alone, even if there was no other human alive but the fetus in her womb.

 

If we care what others think, and we care about the environment, and we consider the lessons dead people have left for us to learn, and we care about the yet to be born, and arranging things to be of benefit for them, then there is something we care about, that need not hear our voice, inorder to care about our comment.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Tar...your statement about the birth of your daughter reminded me about something.

 

Obviously a parent views the birth of their child...at least the vast majority of parents...as something beautiful beyond compare and many compare such a thing to a miracle...and rightly so even with the reality this has happened over 6 Billion Times.

 

Then there are those who have not had children.

 

Of these two groups of people there are three subgroups for each.

 

One of these subgroups are those who tend to be very religious and take what is written in the Bible and other religions versions of in a literal sense or command. That being...Be fruitful and multiply.

 

The second subgroup are those who feel that Humanity is a scourge upon the environment of Earth and that people should either have only one child or no children at all.

 

The third subgroup are people who are moderate in their nature and regardless if they have children or not...they understand the concept of why a parent would have joy upon the birth of a child as well as understand the issues involved with the effect of Humanity upon Earth environment.

 

Now it is the third subgroup that whether or not they believe in a GOD or practice a Religion or do neither...is the subgroup that is in the vast but silent MAJORITY. The reason why people don't see this subgroup being vocal is that they tend to find such activity...ie...being vocal and involved in any attempt to sway Governmental involvement in either FRINGE ULTRA-LEFT OR ULTRA-RIGHT WING issues as STUPIDITY OR LUNACY.

 

Now I belong to this Third Subgroup and I have seen and heard people from both extreme sides of this issue say and do things such as...Talk about protesting in front of a Planned Parenthood Clinic spouting quotes from various religious text detailing the sins of people either going to or working there as well as talking about how such people should be shot for doing so.

 

As well as people from the other Fringe side of the issue detailing how they would love to see those who hunt and harvest deer shot with their rifles or shotguns...or have a Death Penalty for those who pollute the environment.

 

Perhaps if such people on both sides had less consideration over whether there is or isn't a GOD...spent time considering how it would be a good thing to respect each others views and ideals...we could all move forward and understand it is PEOPLE that are going to be the ones to determine whether the Earth and all upon it will live in harmony with the planet and each other.

 

Just a thought.

 

Split Infinity

[Moontanman]

Would anyone care to explain why they dislike metaphysics?

 

...

 

"Did I just hear something?"

 

For me it's mostly because bullshitologist describes most of them better...

 

 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bullshitology

 

1. Bullshitology

Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more

42 up, 23 down

A course offered in many schools often known as English. A pseudoscience, it is the study of how to properly create something of little academic value but sounding reasonably intelligent enough to pass as having nutritional content. The course's main objective is to educate students on the proper method of taking mental diahrea and through Alchemy (Thats where the science comes in) turning this shit into gold. For ninety percent of teachers the products of this course are effective enough to do well without doing actual work with the exception of the few that have previously taught the course.

Freshman: Mom! I start IB today ^^

Mom: Wow whats your schedule?

Freshy: Bullshitology 101, Alchemy 202, and Kiss my Ass 305!

[chris logan]

 

For me it's mostly because bullshitologist describes most of them better...

 

 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bullshitology

no that's just mean

[MonDie]

no that's just mean

 

Not if he can back it up.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

I was not trying to say that if a lot of people think a thing, its a step forward. I was trying to say that steps forward need to be taken by a somebody...and the stepper thereby becomes the judge of it's forward nature. In the history of the world, it is often that one man's gain is another man's loss. It is "the final scorekeeper" that I was alluding to. That we would imagine there is one, to judge a step forward, in universal terms.

 

Was thinking on the way home today that I am part of the history of life on this planet, a mere 100 or 120 year maximum part of a very long history, with a potentially very long future...even if its just algae an ants that populate the place in the future. And the whole history, taken when its over, is just a flash, in the timeframe of the universe, to say nothing of immense size of the universe, and the potential "other" stories that have been, are or will be unfolding, on every scale, from quark to galactic string and possibly beyond that. But I was thinking, why? Why does it matter to me? How do I have the right to consider some sort of ownership of and belonging to, such a huge undertaking?

 

My intent, in asking how many people need to know a thing, for the thing to matter, was sort of the reverse of how you took it. It was not to suggest that if a billion people believe in Allah, that that makes Allah so. It was more to suggest that if anybody cares about the whole story, it must be us, and this suggests to me that since there is nobody here, but us chickens, we must be the story, and the story teller, and therefore the metaphysicist's voice is as clear and loud and meaningful, as that of a mathematician or scientist or poet, or for that matter, as clear and loud and meaningful as that of a bleating goat, or a cackling chicken.

 

People that believe in God, may be broken, but as we have decided along the way in this thread, it matters greatly what you believe belief in God is, in the first place. My question was meant to ask, is there "something" that matters, more than what a zillion people know?

 

Split Infinity,

 

Along the lines of your post, in relation to the 6 "types" of people. Is there a way to look at things, from "above" all six? That is, can any type score the other 5 on an unbiased scale and call the sixth the "right way" to look at it? I am thinking that this "seventh" view, is "God's" pervue. Not that there is such an fellow, but that there is such a view, we take, from time to time.

Whether we take it literally or figuratively, or both, is a matter of definition, and its difficult to tell someone they cannot actually care about the rest of the universe for any valid reason, when it seems that everybody does, in one way, or another.

 

Regards, TAR2

We are laying to rest the sister of my wife's mother this weekend. As that generation of my wife's family dies, it becomes my wife's generation that holds the "older" generation spot. We become the group, to whom things matter...the judges and the teachers and the holders of the flame of purpose and propriety.

 

Heard a nice saying once.

 

"To the whole world, you are just someone, but to someone, you may be the whole world."

[SplitInfinity]

John Cuthber,

 

I was not trying to say that if a lot of people think a thing, its a step forward. I was trying to say that steps forward need to be taken by a somebody...and the stepper thereby becomes the judge of it's forward nature. In the history of the world, it is often that one man's gain is another man's loss. It is "the final scorekeeper" that I was alluding to. That we would imagine there is one, to judge a step forward, in universal terms.

 

Was thinking on the way home today that I am part of the history of life on this planet, a mere 100 or 120 year maximum part of a very long history, with a potentially very long future...even if its just algae an ants that populate the place in the future. And the whole history, taken when its over, is just a flash, in the timeframe of the universe, to say nothing of immense size of the universe, and the potential "other" stories that have been, are or will be unfolding, on every scale, from quark to galactic string and possibly beyond that. But I was thinking, why? Why does it matter to me? How do I have the right to consider some sort of ownership of and belonging to, such a huge undertaking?

 

My intent, in asking how many people need to know a thing, for the thing to matter, was sort of the reverse of how you took it. It was not to suggest that if a billion people believe in Allah, that that makes Allah so. It was more to suggest that if anybody cares about the whole story, it must be us, and this suggests to me that since there is nobody here, but us chickens, we must be the story, and the story teller, and therefore the metaphysicist's voice is as clear and loud and meaningful, as that of a mathematician or scientist or poet, or for that matter, as clear and loud and meaningful as that of a bleating goat, or a cackling chicken.

 

People that believe in God, may be broken, but as we have decided along the way in this thread, it matters greatly what you believe belief in God is, in the first place. My question was meant to ask, is there "something" that matters, more than what a zillion people know?

 

Split Infinity,

 

Along the lines of your post, in relation to the 6 "types" of people. Is there a way to look at things, from "above" all six? That is, can any type score the other 5 on an unbiased scale and call the sixth the "right way" to look at it? I am thinking that this "seventh" view, is "God's" pervue. Not that there is such an fellow, but that there is such a view, we take, from time to time.

Whether we take it literally or figuratively, or both, is a matter of definition, and its difficult to tell someone they cannot actually care about the rest of the universe for any valid reason, when it seems that everybody does, in one way, or another.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

We are laying to rest the sister of my wife's mother this weekend. As that generation of my wife's family dies, it becomes my wife's generation that holds the "older" generation spot. We become the group, to whom things matter...the judges and the teachers and the holders of the flame of purpose and propriety.

 

Heard a nice saying once.

 

"To the whole world, you are just someone, but to someone, you may be the whole world."

 

Tar...there is only ONE CORRECT WAY to view this as well as such a way being MORAL as well as being ENLIGHTENED AND CONCERNED.

 

That way is the one where no one is RUSHING TO JUDGEMENT.

 

In all 5 other subgroups people are rushing to judgement upon whether another person should be condemned and some actually feeling that DEATH should be the sentence for the actions of others.

 

When people who hold different views or beliefs confront each other...and this often happens violently...the act of confrontation instantly places walls in front of being able to talk and come to mutual understanding and mutual respect.

 

Unfortunately by the very nature of some issues and beliefs being able to do so becomes almost impossible when people REFUSE to listen and try to understand another's feelings and concepts.

 

This is why the Moderate Group finds the actions of these other groups so petty and ridiculous. It is hard knowing exactly what must be done to resolve such things but I would advocate education and understanding to start.

 

Split Infinity

[tar]

Split Infinity,

 

Judgement is a two edged sword. You, being in the correct group are of the opinion that the thoughts and ways of the other 5 types are in need of correction.

 

Such is one of the general philosophical issues I have with this thread's tonal title. As if to say there is a group of moderate, intelligent but highly judgemental, "unbias" folk, that have risen above the fray and set the standards for humanity, based on reason and ideals of uninspected origin.

 

The idea of a benevolent dictator is not completely out of the question. That there could be someone, pure of heart, and clear of mind, clever and wise, and able to bring all conflicts to the "correct" resolve. But it would still be a dictator, and people generally like to have some say in the matter. The rule of law, itself, is not something that sprang from chemistry equations, after all. The code of Hammerabl and the rules of the old Testament are deeply set in Western law, philosophy and morality. The "idea" of God, the image of a rule giver and ultimate judge, is not "outside" the fabric of our society. People have been brought up, with this thought, that one is responsible to this greater "feeling", this owner of realiity, that does and will hold us accountable for our actions, regardless of what any other man or woman might think of us. As if we get a grade, or will be able to enjoy the fruits of a "good" life...afterward.

 

I am trying to take a logical look at this, as to WHY we have a conscience, and feel its better to help than to hurt. It is almost as if we all are aware of the same thing, and in possession of the same underlying rules and criteria, with which we can judge each other. I am not thinking that this underpinning is automatic. I am thinking that we learn this. The way to be, that is. The way that works the best, for us. The things we are allowed ot be selfish and personally biased about, and the things we must sacrifice for the good of others.

 

And in this light, I do not think that belief in God is an automatic recipe for hatred and war and killing. In the whole history of the world, I am thinking that the image of God, has been quite a help. How do you think things would have gone, if everyone was just out for themselves, from the beginning, with no concern for what would be, after they died. The strong would vanquish the weak, and the law would be the law of the wild. Anarchy is probably the "natural" state of affairs that would have been, without the concern for an afterlife. Without the belief in ideals that have no actual existence.

 

Not a one of us, has the ability to judge the situation, indifferently. We can only pretend there is such a view, and that it matters. And this "belief" does not "break" a man. It may well make a "civilized" man.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

Split Infinity,

 

Judgement is a two edged sword. You, being in the correct group are of the opinion that the thoughts and ways of the other 5 types are in need of correction.

 

Such is one of the general philosophical issues I have with this thread's tonal title. As if to say there is a group of moderate, intelligent but highly judgemental, "unbias" folk, that have risen above the fray and set the standards for humanity, based on reason and ideals of uninspected origin.

 

The idea of a benevolent dictator is not completely out of the question. That there could be someone, pure of heart, and clear of mind, clever and wise, and able to bring all conflicts to the "correct" resolve. But it would still be a dictator, and people generally like to have some say in the matter. The rule of law, itself, is not something that sprang from chemistry equations, after all. The code of Hammerabl and the rules of the old Testament are deeply set in Western law, philosophy and morality. The "idea" of God, the image of a rule giver and ultimate judge, is not "outside" the fabric of our society. People have been brought up, with this thought, that one is responsible to this greater "feeling", this owner of realiity, that does and will hold us accountable for our actions, regardless of what any other man or woman might think of us. As if we get a grade, or will be able to enjoy the fruits of a "good" life...afterward.

 

I am trying to take a logical look at this, as to WHY we have a conscience, and feel its better to help than to hurt. It is almost as if we all are aware of the same thing, and in possession of the same underlying rules and criteria, with which we can judge each other. I am not thinking that this underpinning is automatic. I am thinking that we learn this. The way to be, that is. The way that works the best, for us. The things we are allowed ot be selfish and personally biased about, and the things we must sacrifice for the good of others.

 

And in this light, I do not think that belief in God is an automatic recipe for hatred and war and killing. In the whole history of the world, I am thinking that the image of God, has been quite a help. How do you think things would have gone, if everyone was just out for themselves, from the beginning, with no concern for what would be, after they died. The strong would vanquish the weak, and the law would be the law of the wild. Anarchy is probably the "natural" state of affairs that would have been, without the concern for an afterlife. Without the belief in ideals that have no actual existence.

 

Not a one of us, has the ability to judge the situation, indifferently. We can only pretend there is such a view, and that it matters. And this "belief" does not "break" a man. It may well make a "civilized" man.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

TAR2, we have discussed the natural origin of morals and social behavior here so many times and you want to give the idea of a god credit for those things that occur naturally in social animals like humans? I have to ask why?

[SplitInfinity]

Split Infinity,

 

Judgement is a two edged sword. You, being in the correct group are of the opinion that the thoughts and ways of the other 5 types are in need of correction.

 

Such is one of the general philosophical issues I have with this thread's tonal title. As if to say there is a group of moderate, intelligent but highly judgemental, "unbias" folk, that have risen above the fray and set the standards for humanity, based on reason and ideals of uninspected origin.

 

The idea of a benevolent dictator is not completely out of the question. That there could be someone, pure of heart, and clear of mind, clever and wise, and able to bring all conflicts to the "correct" resolve. But it would still be a dictator, and people generally like to have some say in the matter. The rule of law, itself, is not something that sprang from chemistry equations, after all. The code of Hammerabl and the rules of the old Testament are deeply set in Western law, philosophy and morality. The "idea" of God, the image of a rule giver and ultimate judge, is not "outside" the fabric of our society. People have been brought up, with this thought, that one is responsible to this greater "feeling", this owner of realiity, that does and will hold us accountable for our actions, regardless of what any other man or woman might think of us. As if we get a grade, or will be able to enjoy the fruits of a "good" life...afterward.

 

I am trying to take a logical look at this, as to WHY we have a conscience, and feel its better to help than to hurt. It is almost as if we all are aware of the same thing, and in possession of the same underlying rules and criteria, with which we can judge each other. I am not thinking that this underpinning is automatic. I am thinking that we learn this. The way to be, that is. The way that works the best, for us. The things we are allowed ot be selfish and personally biased about, and the things we must sacrifice for the good of others.

 

And in this light, I do not think that belief in God is an automatic recipe for hatred and war and killing. In the whole history of the world, I am thinking that the image of God, has been quite a help. How do you think things would have gone, if everyone was just out for themselves, from the beginning, with no concern for what would be, after they died. The strong would vanquish the weak, and the law would be the law of the wild. Anarchy is probably the "natural" state of affairs that would have been, without the concern for an afterlife. Without the belief in ideals that have no actual existence.

 

Not a one of us, has the ability to judge the situation, indifferently. We can only pretend there is such a view, and that it matters. And this "belief" does not "break" a man. It may well make a "civilized" man.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Tar...if you read what I said about the Moderate Group...I said that within this group will be those who might believe in a GOD or practice a Religion or NOT.

 

Whether a person does or doesn't believe in a GOD or practice a Religion or not has no bearing upon the reason they are part of this group. They are part because they are not advocating HATRED AND DEATH for those who do not believe as they do.

 

I think you will be hard pressed to find A REASON to condemn their way of thinking.

 

Split Infinity

 

TAR2, we have discussed the natural origin of morals and social behavior here so many times and you want to give the idea of a god credit for those things that occur naturally in social animals like humans? I have to ask why?

 

How else would the concept of a GOD come to exist...unless said GOD actually did talk to Humans...but then again...there is no evidence to support this beyond people saying that it happened.

 

Split Infinity

[Iggy]

How else would the concept of a GOD come to exist...unless said GOD actually did talk to Humans.

 

To keep things interesting, I'm going to answer alphabetically in iambic pentameter...

 

 

 

The A-bao-a-qu lived in human dream.

No less real than any god he did seem.

The spirit Aatxe took the cavern's deep.

The Abaasy sat atop heaven's heap.

 

The thought that made these, one cannot deny,

can just as easily make any god die.

 

The Abada was a little unicorn.

In guiltless dreams of children it was born,

and survived by the thoughts they would adorn,

but now they're gone with no one left to mourn.

 

How could we invent the horn of Abath,

without the aphrodisiac it hath?

 

Our nature dreams up man-made frauds,

imagining mighty and living gods.

But, we don't get to ask from where they came.

Our playful thoughts are only to blame.

 

 

Ah... that went well ;-)

 

Edited June 12, 2013 by Iggy

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

I know we have discussed the extension of the social animal idea through to super Alpha males (presidents and kings) and laws can be thought of as pack rules, written down and improved on and tested against all conflicts as they arise, and you COULD imagine us getting to something like we have, without the idea of God...but that is not the way it went down. We HAVE this idea of God...enough at least for people who don't "believe" in God, to know enough about the idea, to consider it "untrue", or to consider God dead, or to consider the idea of no further use to us. Its this fact that our history has this idea in it, that has me considering that we would not be exactly here, without it. And even people who don't need the idea, or have rejected the idea, or those who KNOW the idea is only an idea and not a real entity, still use the term, and describe what characteristics of a particular named God, are obviously impossible or unworkable. And of course there is the fact that billions of humans consider whatever image they have of God to be an image of a real existing consideration. And these billions make up a goodly portion of our civilization and are that proportion of the humans that make and follow and uphold the laws we live by.

 

In the context of the thread one would have to consider half the world broken by virtue of their belief in God. And of these many thusly "broken" folk, there must be a large percentage, that are actualy holding the place together. And at least in this, one could argue, that it does not actually "hurt" to belief in God.

 

Split Infinity,

 

Except in your types, who will kill in the name of their God. But then again there are people that will kill in the name of their country, or their leader, or their philosophy, or kill for a buck, or for power and control, or to simply protect their way of life and resources (their tribe). So if "moderates" would disallow killing for beliefs in imaginary things, where would you draw the line, as to when Moontanman's social animal kills appropriately to protect his clan against outsiders? How do you bring the entire world together under one "thought", without the use of adherence to an unquestioned ideal?

 

Iggy,

 

I liked your poem.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

And in the context of "social animals" consider that conflicts are often settled "man to man" or tusk to tusk as the case might be.

 

In a bar, a fight is often handled by the bouncer saying "take it outside". It then becomes the problem of the neighbors and the local police. In common practice on this Earth you can always dump you problems outside or consider other people's problems, not your problem. It becomes more difficult to enforce "proper" behaviour when the conflict is outside your borders. Then you have to pick sides. Then like in Syria, you have some states backing the rebels and some backing the King, for no particular "reason", that could be considered "universally" agreed upon. Then you have to wonder if your "ideal" is sound enough to pit the U.S. against the Soviet Union, or whether its best to back off and let the King work out his own problems.

 

The point being, that having an ideal that you cannot trump, or get "outside" of, that is the "last word" on any issue or conflicts, is not a bad card to have in your hand. Especially if everybody else in the world would honor the card.

Edited June 13, 2013 by tar

[SplitInfinity]

Tar...although I abhor violence I am a person who is both trained and capable of extreme acts of violence. In my opinion...if I am on a...JOB...and the situation spirals into violent actions...I have not done my...JOB...correctly.

 

It is a reality of our world that people will KILL for a wide range of reasons and although I would prefer it if such KILLING did not take place...sometimes there is no other course.

 

Now some might say...There is ALWAYS another course or another way to prevent KILLING...but such WAYS tend to be of a nature where if a person or group is not terminated...this inaction will cause the deaths of others or perhaps...MANY OTHERS...and in most of these instances the people that are KILLED for the purpose of saving others know full well what they are involved with and are in no way...INNOCENT.

 

I will tell you this now from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE...The most violent and dangerous of all such people...are those who KILL in the name of a GOD or RELIGION. No other group of people is so unpredictable, violent, willing to die to KILL others, willing to KILL INNOCENTS to make a point in some warped concept of doing so in GOD'S NAME or considering themselves as THE HAND OF GOD and such people are not just confined to Middle East Terrorist Groups...but exist right in the U.S. and have jobs, go to PTA Meetings, are members of local churches or other religious institutions and justify such actions as being a method to protect their children, their Religious Rights and their way of life.

 

Now if I am brought in on a...JOB...it is because all other methods have failed to resolve the issue and I am brought in to convey the message that unless the person or group in question can come to a brokered agreement that I am charged with structuring...as well as let them know this is the last effort that will be made...then OTHER forceful and decisive actions will take place to force their compliance or end the issue once and for all.

 

When I work with other people or groups that are not of the nature of Religion Specific in their cause...I have an almost 100% success rate where EVERYONE gets to go home and live their lives.

 

When I am brought in to a...JOB...where the issue is being created by people or groups RELIGION SPECIFIC...my success rate is MUCH LOWER.

 

I hate this being a fact and if it was possible I would REFUSE to do...JOBS...that involved such people or groups. But since a high percentage of issues demanding a FIX are created by such people and groups...to deal with them is inevitable.

 

So if you are asking me where I would...DRAW THE LINE? I would draw the line at a point before anyone could hurt anyone else.

 

The problem is...I AM NOT THE ONE DRAWING THE LINES...and even if I did...these people would be right there with an eraser and pencil removing my drawn line and creating another line at a point where they are comfortable going so far.

 

Split Infinity

[SamBridge]

Isn't it an unproven belief that people who believe in god are broken?

[MonDie]

Isn't it an unproven belief that people who believe in god are broken?

 

69 pages and this still hasn't been worked out.

I've been answering as if it's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

I liked your poem.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I guess that's good.

 

I just hope it isn't lost on you... I wasn't intending to write a poem. It's just that you asked the most cliched question ever to hit the airwaves. It has been answered so completely, in so many different ways, for hundreds of years -- I was just looking for some unique way of putting it.

 

The current favorite way of answering your question is with pixie farts and pink unicorns. That should give an idea how worn out and slippery the handhold you're reaching for really is.

 

How completely does a question need to be answered before you stop asking it... was the point there.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Iggy

[MonDie]

Iggy, your poem was in response to SplitInfinity, not TAR.

 

 

How else would the concept of a GOD come to exist...unless said GOD actually did talk to Humans...but then again...there is no evidence to support this beyond people saying that it happened.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[krash661]

individuals say god,

i say E.T

[MonDie]

If God existed, he would be extra-terrestrial (beyond Earth).

 

There you have it. Christians believe in extraterrestrial life.

[krash661]

are you calling me a christian ?

 

my comment is beyond auto pilot thinking.

there is a lot to explain my comment.

to much to type.,

but i will say,

it does involve the anceint alien thought.

not the show on T.V

but the core idea.

[MonDie]

I wasn't calling you anything.

 

Anyway, would you be offended if I was calling you a Christian?

 

Krash and Jesus

sitting in a tree

P.R.A.Y.

I.N.G

Edited June 13, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[krash661]

lol, no.

i just wanted to understand if you were.

 

most people do not understand religion, even religious people.

 

but like i said there's a lot to type to explain myself.

and i really do not care if anyone is interested to know.

[Iggy]

Iggy, your poem was in response to SplitInfinity, not TAR.

 

Yikes. I must have gone crosseyed.

 

Sorry, Tar. I'm glad you liked it

[Ophiolite]

I will tell you this now from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE...The most violent and dangerous of all such people...are those who KILL in the name of a GOD or RELIGION.

So you are asking us to accept an assertion based on nothing better than anecdotes. That is hardly very convincing and certainly not scientific.

[tar]

Split Infinity,

 

I understand your point, about religious people that are operating with such a diverse mindset from "reason", that they cannot be reasoned with. One of my main reasons for trying to understand what people "mean" by god, was 9/11, where the action, done presumably in the name of Allah, to deal a blow to Satan, looked like nothing more than pure Evil to me. Death and destruction for no purpose, no goal, no sensible reason.

 

I am an enemy of those that would be behind such a day as 9/11. I am not the enemy of the creator of the universe. Therefore the action was not taken by the creator of the universe, and anyone thinking that the creator of the universe was served by such an action, is in serious error.

 

So for me, in this discussion, where belief in the creator of the universe is being equated with error and brokeness, I fully agree, as in the case of 9/11, where it is so obvious that the creator of the universe would not do such a contrary thing, and therefore it must be the act of broken persons, in serious error.

 

This however does not convict God of the act, nor prove to us, that there is not a higher standard we should hold ourselves to.

 

So if God exists, he wouldn't do that, and if God doesn't exist, he didn't do that by virtue of the fact that he doesn't exist to do that.

 

Which leaves only us, to figure out what should and shouldn't be done, what standards to enforce and uphold, and what things are good and what things are bad for us, here and now, and for our children, who will take our places when we die.

 

In this, the "idea" of God, of an overarching ideal that we are responsible to, and "working for", when we do our job correctly, is not a bad thing to believe in.

 

However, if you think personally, that you are the only one on the job, the only one doing it right...you have somehow missed the point.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Trekkie_4_Life_69]

I think that god provides the "answer" for people who cant decide on major choices in there life, in other words, whether its Christianity, Judaism, Islam or whatever, It fills a void for people, So in some cases yes, most religious people are broken and they use religion as a glue.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Trekkie_4_Life_69