+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off topic (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread (/thread-2337.html)
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
mentat_kgs Wrote:Erm, not the same. Much better results!Yes, if a person's mental disposition is such, then secularism is superior for that person. For me it is not so much fun to take a purely dry analytical approach. I want to combine imagination, lust, and anger into it to give it more energy. My favorite meditation is upon a Deity called Vajra Sattva in sexual union with his consort. Everything in the mental picture is symbolic and not believed to be real. The sexual union is to remind one that compassion and wisdom are inseparable. One without the other causes major problems. They wear crowns of five colored jewels that remind one of the the five major unstable emotions that can overcome us and lead to harmful acts against others. They have a mirror behind them that reminds one that what ever negative qualities we perceive others to have are nothing more than a reflection of our own mental dispositions. Every tiny detail in the image has a story and meaning. These are just an overview but the actual meditation should involve a much more investigative approach.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:The bible says everybody is inherently evil.It is a very sad thing if people actually believe this.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
Ha, and I just read all the different passages that talk about Jesus overturning the temple tables. Nowhere does it say that He did so in anger.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-29
@ alyks
I was an atheist for many years (and still technically am) but I will outline some of the reasons I personally turned to religion:
IMO, one goal of religion is to sublimate the self to the totality of the universe. It's the realization that there is more than just the characteristics you call you in this world and to find peace in the knowledge that you are just a brief and small speck in space and time.
As a non-religious atheist, it was difficult for me to deal with the feeling that all material pursuits were pointless due to the inevitability of death. Religion provides a convenient infrastructure that allows one to think that maybe there is more to life than just racing after material objects and interpersonal relationships. To put it quite simply, religion can provide hope to at least some people like me who were severely depressed and unfulfilled with life as it is. To you it may seem just like a fantasy, but if it is, at least it is a fantasy that makes me feel I can cope with day to day struggles without killing myself.
Religion also gave me a strong moral base. Believe it or not, not everybody has this. As I grew up, I would do pretty much whatever I wanted without guilt so long as I knew I could probably get away with it. It didn't make me feel guilty, but it made me feel as though there was no consistency or substance to my personality. I had a very empty feeling inside because I felt that I stood for nothing.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
bodhisamaya Wrote:That the bible says that? Or that everybody is inherently evil?igordesu Wrote:The bible says everybody is inherently evil.It is a very sad thing if people actually believe this.
The Bible says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Everybody has violated the standard set forth in the Bible in *some* way. Nobody's that perfect. So, from there, I guess it's just your affair if you want to believe that your violation of the standard in the book called the Bible is of any consequence.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-29
@Dragg
Or you can live happily without even knowing that such problems exist!
If the problem has a solution. No need to worry. If the problem has no solution. No need to worry.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:Do you ever form an opinion based on what you actually feel? I can't really relate to things based on what "the Bible says", though I have read it many times, because I don't think it was ever meant to be taken literally. It is not authoritative to me.bodhisamaya Wrote:That the bible says that? Or that everybody is inherently evil?igordesu Wrote:The bible says everybody is inherently evil.It is a very sad thing if people actually believe this.
The Bible says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Everybody has violated the standard set forth in the Bible in *some* way. Nobody's that perfect. So, from there, I guess it's just your affair if you want to believe that your violation of the standard in the book called the Bible is of any consequence.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-29
@ mentat
Yes I know that works for some people. However, even since childhood I have been unable to find much happiness in simple pleasures like eating, viewing nature, etc. I'm sure that many people can find happiness without religion in their lives.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
mentat_kgs Wrote:@Dragg
If the problem has a solution. No need to worry. If the problem has no solution. No need to worry.
This is actually something the Dalai Lama says often. But he stresses the importance of action over prayer on problems that do have a solution.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - snispilbor - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:"Actual Christianity, as Jesus actually established it, is ridiculously simple: "Believe you're saved, and you'll be saved. Have a nice day." That's IT. There's nothing else."If this were true, then a Christian who errs and then dies before having a chance to repent, would go to hell. Salvation is permanent, and has nothing to do with acts (ie, sins). The whole of Jesus' Christianity is: "Believe you are saved, and you will be saved." I'm not sure why you are so resistant to that; son, I feel the Lord compelling me to share it with you, because it is really good news!
Actually, Jesus typically said something more like, repent of your sins and follow me (in belief). And in the translation of the word believe, which we take to mean "accept as the truth or fact," actually means something more like "put your trust in."
igordesu Wrote:"Bible: Jesus never read the Bible."The Old Testament is part of the Bible, it is not the Bible itself, and even in the perverted corrupt modern institution of Christianity, the Old Testament plays second chair to the New Testament.
You're wrong. Even if you don't agree that He was the son of God or anything, it is still clear from the Bible that he was familiar with the old testament. In his teachings, he quotes A LOT from the book of the *law*, Deuteronomy (He quotes from here more than anywhere else, gee, isn't that FUNNY...). In Luke chapter 4 verses 16-21, Jesus specifically reads from the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament in a synagogue in Nazareth. It's true that He wasn't familiar with the New Testament as it wasn't written yet, but, if you believe the first chapter of John and that Jesus is God, then it is clear that the Bible is the very word of God (Jesus).
igordesu Wrote:"Church: Jesus never went to a Christian church (in the sense of an institution)"I could found a stripclub based on his ideas. It would have a New Testament theme, the strippers could even come wash your feet for you. Would that make it holy?
Of course. The church wasn't founded until the day of Pentacost (read about it in the book of Acts) after Jesus' death and ascension. This is irrelevant anyways since, even if you don't believe that he was God and the founder of the church, the church was still originally founded upon his ideas.
igordesu Wrote:"Ten Commandments: Jesus himself said they were null and void. They are the "old covenant"."Jesus _fulfills_ the Law by being the sacrifice. He removes from us the obligation to follow the laws. Before Jesus, if you broke a law you had to make some animal sacrifices. Jesus _fulfills_ the law by BEING that sacrifice, so that we don't have to worry about it. The rest of your quote is entirely supporting ME, because Jesus is talking about a sort of Heavenly hierarchy, "he shall be called least in Heaven", "he shall be called greatest in Heaven", Jesus says nothing about the offender going to Hell. He's directly saying that the offender will still go to Heaven (albeit, where he'll be "seen as least", whatever that means, but who cares?)
Wrong again. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-21 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." You must have skipped over this part, eh? The purpose of the law was never to save us but to show us our faults. It is by the law (ten commandments) that we know we are sinners in need of Jesus. That's what he means by "fulfill." When Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God totally and the second greatest is to love your neighbors, this is a summary of the ten commandments.
igordesu Wrote:"The Christian religion which exists today is pure evil and should be utterly destroyed."Who said the first thing about atheism or creationism? I happen to be extremely spiritual, and I call the modern institution of Christianity evil for the same reasons I would call a serial killer or child rapist evil. Modern Christianity is far worse than any serial killer or child rapist.
How can you say this (or anything else) is evil? To what standard are you comparing this when you say it's evil? There MUST be some standard for you to say that. If you are an athiest, there is no basis for you to call anything evil. Without starting a debate on creationism, etc., if we are all the product of random chance, there is really no reason for you to call something evil. The only "law" there would be is survival-of-the-fittest. "Might makes right." If we're products of random chance, none of us is better than the other, and therefore no one's sense of ethics is better than another's.
igordesu Wrote:"Any religion which tries to spread "abstinence until marriage", is evil and should be utterly destroyed."The abstinence-only sex education pushed by Modern Christianity has been proven to be ineffective at stopping premarital sex, and by removing education on actual contraception/protection, actually increases teen pregnancies and STDs. Furthermore, the institution of marriage is entirely secular and certainly the Christian marriage ceremonies have _no_ Biblical foundation. Going off on a Japanese-related tangent, it's interesting to compare Heian era marriages, formed initially by having sex three nights in a row where the house servants can hear it; showing how ludicrous the "no sex before marriage" idea is.
Because we all know teenage pregnancies and STDs are the best thing ever.
igordesu Wrote:"Any religion which attempts to LOWER peoples' consciousness, is evil and should be utterly destroyed."As others have pointed out, Modern Christianity specifically discourages people from questioning certain things or having open minds about certain things.
Not sure what you mean by that.
igordesu Wrote:"Any religion which declares certain natural-born minorities (e.g. gays) to be inherently evil, is evil and should be utterly destroyed."You're technically right here, but that's not how Modern Christianity has practiced it. You and everyone else reading this all know that under Modern Christianity the homosexual is mercilessly persecuted, and there is no excuse, and you as a Modern Christian ought to be ashamed.
Actually, the bible declares every "natural-born minority" to be inherently evil. The bible says everybody is inherently evil. I'm not sure what your point is there. I won't get into a debate about homosexuality in this public forum. We all know that discussion would not end up being a normal discussion. If anybody really wants to debate it, I guess I'd do it over email.
igordesu Wrote:"Jesus himself agrees with me absolutely, and as His tantrum in the Jewish synagogue demonstrates, He would happily light the first detonator."Yes, he would. I claim prophecy here and declare Jesus is speaking through me. Roll your saving throw.
No, He doesn't. He did not have a tantrum in the Jewish synagogue (actually, I think it was the temple). He did that to dispel the people who were making a monetary profit off of religion. I think many people in this thread could sympathize with that.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-29
The people who keep saying that Christianity is completely evil should consider this:
In my town, I looked in the volunteer directories in the library because I was interested in doing charity work for the needy. To my surprise and horror, literally every charity group devoted to clothing, feeding, sheltering, rehabbing, and finding jobs for homeless was CHRISTIAN. Not a single secular one was in my area. At the time, I felt that I couldn't volunteer for these organizations because I'm not Christian and I considered these to be unethical attempts to convert these people. However, now that I reflect upon in later, if I was homeless, I would rather get my basic needs fulfilled and listen to a sermon rather than have no food at all.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
Dragg Wrote:In my town, I looked in the volunteer directories in the library because I was interested in doing charity work for the needy. To my surprise and horror, literally every charity group devoted to clothing, feeding, sheltering, rehabbing, and finding jobs for homeless was CHRISTIAN. Not a single secular one was in my area. At the time, I felt that I couldn't volunteer for these organizations because I'm not Christian and I considered these to be unethical attempts to convert these people. However, now that I reflect upon in later, if I was homeless, I would rather get my basic needs fulfilled and listen to a sermon rather than have no food at all.Welfare programs run by the government are secular in theory. Since Bush signed the Faith Based initiatives even religious programs might be secular. Only Bible based faiths are eligible though, indirectly establishing a state religion.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-29
@ bodhi
I was referring to charities that accept volunteers. I think that welfare has too much red-tape and impersonal qualities to be considered a true charity anyway. For example, food stamps are not the greatest for homeless people since most reasonably-priced grocery food requires preparation and ideally a kitchen.
Also, I'm not 100 percent sure, but I sort of doubt that the high numbers of illegal aliens here in California would be eligible for most types of welfare.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
I have volunteered at soup kitchens. Food stamps are better. I have many homeless friends here in Kauai who eat three meals a day on food stamps. It is a charity provided for by the kindess of society. Catholic charities are a good example of the positive potential that Christianity has. The local Dharma Center makes a regular drop off at the Salvation Army and grows fruits and vegetables to be given out through Catholic Charities by a mostly protestant volunteer staff.
There are little old ladies that sit and knit as you walk into the state building here in Kauai and serve as volunteers to help first time people apply for benefits.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - cracky - 2008-12-29
Welfare for sure counts as a charity to me. I grew up pretty poor and welfare is pretty much the only reason my family ever recovered back then. The other charity that really helped was the local school, they brought presents and food every Christmas.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-29
Not every charity for the homeless serves soups. The one closest to me serves complete meals.
I have a friend who used to receive about 200 dollars in food stamps every month which I believe was the max. He wasn't homeless and yet he was barely able to feed himself even though he had his own place. It takes a tremendous amount of planning skills and restraint in order to not find yourself nearly starving at the end of the month on food stamps alone. For many homeless people it is even harder. I frequently see them digging around in the trash for food in some areas of town. Not to mention than many of them are clearly mentally ill and should be on SSI and would be if it wasn't for all the red tape. Welfare is kind in a very clinical generic sense of the word. Many workers are trained to be very cold and selective in regards to who recieves SSI in an often unfair way. Sometimes you have to appeal multiple times before they finally give in. The system is clearly tilted to give people who have doctors willing to write compelling letters or motivated advocates the advantage.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
bodhisamaya Wrote:To answer the first question, I do. However, I find that the Christian worldview (which comes from the Bible) shapes the way I honestly feel about many things, so...igordesu Wrote:Do you ever form an opinion based on what you actually feel? I can't really relate to things based on what "the Bible says", though I have read it many times, because I don't think it was ever meant to be taken literally. It is not authoritative to me.bodhisamaya Wrote:It is a very sad thing if people actually believe this.That the bible says that? Or that everybody is inherently evil?
The Bible says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Everybody has violated the standard set forth in the Bible in *some* way. Nobody's that perfect. So, from there, I guess it's just your affair if you want to believe that your violation of the standard in the book called the Bible is of any consequence.
If it's not authoritative to you or you don't think it was meant to be taken literally, then that just means that you don't believe that it's really the Word of God. (ex. The whole thing starts "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth..."<----if you have problems with that, you'll have problems with the rest of the book) If that's your belief, then that's your belief.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Jeromin - 2008-12-29
I'm thinking that, one of the advantages of participating in the forums of intellectually challenging hobbies, like Japanese or the game of Go, is that they tend to attract a crowd with interesting things to say on any topic. Makes the off topic discussions a pleasure to read.
I was going to argue against the view that an atheist is incapable of ethical behaviour, or at least that they have no grounds for it. Ever since I can recall, the threat of Hell by a mighty god to induce good behaviour has seemed, I don't know... undignified? But suddenly I feel totally unmotivated to elaborate and fight my point; I guess I had an overdose of ethics in college. Anyone wants to pick it up?
J
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-29
Jeromin Wrote:I'm thinking that, one of the advantages of participating in the forums of intellectually challenging hobbies, like Japanese or the game of Go, is that they tend to attract a crowd with interesting things to say on any topic. Makes the off topic discussions a pleasure to read.All I can add to that is, religious people who seriously believe atheists can't be ethical are ignorant beyond belief and they are very naive to believe they are ethical simply because of their religious guidelines.
I was going to argue against the view that an atheist is incapable of ethical behaviour, or at least that they have no grounds for it. Ever since I can recall, the threat of Hell by a mighty god to induce good behaviour has seemed, I don't know... undignified? But suddenly I feel totally unmotivated to elaborate and fight my point; I guess I had an overdose of ethics in college. Anyone wants to pick it up?
J
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - playadom - 2008-12-29
Tobberoth Wrote:All I can add to that is, religious people who seriously believe atheists can't be ethical are ignorant beyond belief and they are very naive to believe they are ethical simply because of their religious guidelines.I agree wholeheartedly.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
I'm just asking where athiests get their ethics from. I didn't mean that atheists are incapable of behaving in a civilized manner--that's ridiculous. I'm just saying that, maybe, they haven't thought things through all the way. If there is no "God" or intelligent designer to give any laws in to its creation, then where did any law or ethical code come from? It couldn't have "evolved." And/or why did the atheists create it? There are many reasons. Maybe they propose an ethical code for the sake of maintaining a society or, you know, something like that. However, if they did that, that's because they value society. That doesn't make their ethical code something that can be used to judge anything else, because isn't it just an imaginary thing that they made up to serve their purposes? Like, who said it was this or that that is right or wrong?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:Maybe they propose an ethical code for the sake of maintaining a society or, you know, something like that. However, if they did that, that's because they value society. That doesn't make their ethical code something that can be used to judge anything else, because isn't it just an imaginary thing that they made up to serve their purposes? Like, who said it was this or that that is right or wrong?I don't understand what you mean. Why would you need to judge anything else?
Without absolute spiritual rules, I think that most societies will naturally gravitate to a sort of libertarianism. It will be something along the lines of "Do whatever you want so long as you don't hurt anybody else in the process." For example, without religion I don't see why there would need to be strict prohibitions against drugs.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
Dragg Wrote:Not every charity for the homeless serves soups. The one closest to me serves complete meals.They did serve complete meals. I just used soup kitchen as a generic term. I volunteered at the Las Vegas "place where they serve food to homeless" building
I have a friend who used to receive about 200 dollars in food stamps every month which I believe was the max. He wasn't homeless and yet he was barely able to feed himself even though he had his own place. It takes a tremendous amount of planning skills and restraint in order to not find yourself nearly starving at the end of the month on food stamps alone. For many homeless people it is even harder. I frequently see them digging around in the trash for food in some areas of town. Not to mention than many of them are clearly mentally ill and should be on SSI and would be if it wasn't for all the red tape. Welfare is kind in a very clinical generic sense of the word. Many workers are trained to be very cold and selective in regards to who recieves SSI in an often unfair way. Sometimes you have to appeal multiple times before they finally give in. The system is clearly tilted to give people who have doctors willing to write compelling letters or motivated advocates the advantage.
back in the late 90's. It was a very threatening environment. In fact I was threatened on many occasions for not giving large enough servings by metally ill and violent people. I recieved food stamps for a couple months early this year. I had no money left after not getting paid by NOVA in Japan for two months and returned to Hawaii penniless. All I had to show was an I.D. and take a short interview. The interviewer was pleasant to me. I have a budget of $5/day for food no matter my income (I loved the 100yen store in Japan). It is easy if you buy in bulk every month and eat to live instead of live to eat.
igordesu Wrote:I'm just asking where athiests get their ethics from.From the fact people are not inherently evil. Hate to go against God on this one but...
KristinHolly Wrote:Romans 2:14-15 "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness . . ."
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-29
igordesu, it's really quite simple. I don't need God to tell me that it's wrong to kill a human. I don't need anyone to tell me or teach me that. No animal has the instinct to kill another one of its kind, it makes no sense. Do animals kill each other? Yeah, when they have reason to. The difference is that humans are more civilized, we've come up with better ways to handle crimes and conflicts. Humans don't WANT to kill each other, it comes naturally that we are against it. We don't need God or anything else, it did just evolve from out instincts as we became a more advanced species.
I'm a human which gives me automatic empathic ability towards other humans. I know how it feels when someone punches me, I know it feels bad. I know other humans feel the same way since they are humans just like me. Therefor, I do not want to punch another human. It's automatic and built into us from birth. Religion isn't a part of it.
Universal ethic: Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you. It is completely independant on religion.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - cracky - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:I'm just asking where athiests get their ethics from.Society, empathy, nurture, and reasoning. Same things Christians get their ethics from, well minus the reasoning for them.
EDITED