Exposing Christianity

[Ludwig9]

That's where humanism comes in. I know that in my posts I must seem to be a very pessimist person who is angry at the world and is not happy about her life. That's not true. I'm very happy about my life and I know that I'm very fotunate to be granted a life where I'm constantly surrounded by good people. And so, I hope that the future will bring the same fate to my descendands.

 

I have made no comment on your personal character.

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand. You mean any action can be evil?

 

If an action is contrary to good, then yes, it is considered evil.

 

And I don't deny it. I've always maintained that there must be something greater than us, because we are here, breathing, conversing, expressing ideas. There must be something. Yet, I don't call that being God. It's just my own opinion, of course, as we are all entitled to have an opinion.

 

Ok, then what would you call the “something” greater then us?

 

We, the people, do. Anything that is not destructive and proves itself to be good for humanity of earth can be considered good. Ex., helping others (as one might be in a situation where one needs help himself), not killing (because killing leads to the extinction of species), passing on knowledge to the future generation, etc. These are all qualities that can collectively be defined as morality. Believers always say where do atheists get their morality, since they believe morality comes from religion. But not so. Morality, or just good actions that humans do on earth, comes from experience of generations of people having lived their lives on earth. People understand that society functions better when people don't kill and lend a helping hand to those in need. Where do you think law and order comes from?

 

I will have to disagree with you on your statement – Anything that is not destructive and proves itself good for humanity of earth can be considered good – if humanity decides to destroy evil, then destruction would be defined as something good and therefore making what is good and just, relative. Just as one day a good decision can be made, and then the next day that same decision can be considered a bad decision. People are intrinsically erroneous, and to have any society or a civilization define what morality is then that would mean taking into consideration that the morality being defined can be considered wrong or immoral due to the group creating is able to make an error. I believe law and order comes from God.

[Arpa]

Wow, is that so?

Sip, I am surprised that you are surprised.

Throughout history royal women have always affected conversion to Christianity. Look at Constantine’s mother Helen and Trdat’s sister, and the Hripsiminiants Virgins.

Is there a sexual and sexist element to this?

Could it be that women would fall prey to Christian mythology more readily than the male counterpart, since both Jehovah and Jesus are portrayed as of the male persuasion?

Would the male population have been forerunners of Christianity if God and Jesus were of the female persuasion?

Some say no, since females are more emotional and driven by that motherly instinct.

Yet emotionalism may be of import when we consider how so openly anti-theists/atheists here and elsewhere as well as the most virulent protectors of the so-called faith are females.

May be not. Since it seems males are more pragmatic and practical, except some 16 year olds who are still in thee process of sorting things as who we are, where did we come from and where we are headed. We all have gone through that stage and so will they in due time.

Doe testosterone and estrogen play a role here?

Edited February 22, 2006 by Arpa

[Anoushik]

Ok, then what would you call the “something” greater then us?

It doesn't concern me.

I will have to disagree with you on your statement – Anything that is not destructive and proves itself good for humanity of earth can be considered good – if humanity decides to destroy evil, then destruction would be defined as something good and therefore making what is good and just, relative. Just as one day a good decision can be made, and then the next day that same decision can be considered a bad decision. People are intrinsically erroneous, and to have any society or a civilization define what morality is then that would mean taking into consideration that the morality being defined can be considered wrong or immoral due to the group creating is able to make an error. I believe law and order comes from God.

By "destructive" I meant anything that can cause catastrophe and disorder.

[Anoushik]

Even tough there are more female followers in organized religions and yet God chooses to reveal through men.

Where did you find that information? Any sources?

[MosJan]

No way!!

I protest!

I will not tolerate such travesty of justice.

Vice squad, maybe. Whereby I may sample the merchandise.

Nothing short of numero uno.

OK, OK, we’ll compromise.

We’ll take turns. You the first 1000 years and I the next.

What sayest thou Azatollah?

Huh??

Azat is half way there already as his name is an abbreviation of “yazata”.

 

 

can i be teh GAbriel Hreshtak ???

if yes then i have demands -

more legroom in airplanes -

2 weeks vacation after every week

sushi 3 times a week at Azat's place

in return i will Volunteer to work in turky

[Arpa]

can i be teh GAbriel Hreshtak ???

if yes then i have demands -

more legroom in airplanes -

2 weeks vacation after every week

sushi 3 times a week at Azat's place

in return i will Volunteer to work in turky

MosJan, du arden mer pahapn/pashtpan hreshtak/guradian angel-n es

---

Can I amend my vote?

I should have given it more thought.

After reviewing the curricula vitae of the applicants…

I’m sorry Sip. I hope you don’t mind, but look what you will be getting instead.

Allow me to nominate MosJan as Papa. He has all the attributes and the credentials. Sorry! No sushi, but you can have all the manicotti and the canoli you can stomach.

Sip, you have two choices, you can opt for a cardinal**, you have a somewhat faded cheesy “red” cap already, or we can make you the Dalai Lama. Look what you will be getting, a saffron robe to go with your headdress, but above all you will hold the keys to the barbeque. Maybe not so much Mongolian, but close enough.

How about Tibetan Yak roast!!

Look at all the other fringe benefits. You can walk around half naked, wrapped in “apricot” bath towels, contemplate you navel while counting your beads and live like a king while your people live in tents of goat skin.

 

I know, I know. There are those on this thread who would like to shoot me, Now I sound like Hagarag with that persecution complex, but I cannot keep a straight face considering that some of the arguments here, be they pro or con , are more comical than I can ever produce.

WOW!! This thread has filled 12 pages in as many days??!!

Even Milton could not accomplish such a feat.

Has anyone heard of Divine Comedy?

Read some of the posts above, not to forget to read the original post.

 

** Speaking of which, as we speak the news channels are showing pictures of the installation of 12 new cardinals in heir halloween costumes. However I don't see neither Mosjan nor Sip. So, give up. Neither of you have the surname of (Cardinal) Agahajanian, do you!

Once again, shoot me if you must, but I can't help but watch these costumes paries anymore that when we used to play "house", "I'll be papa, you the mama and the rest, 12 babies", when we were 6 years old. When even then we knew that only boys would be papa-s and girls; mama-s.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Arpa

[Yervant1]

Where did you find that information? Any sources?

All the prophets are men. All the religious books are written by men (bible, qoran, torah etc.).

Even though women are very active in religion, why God didn't pick a woman or inspire a woman to write such a book.

What i'm getting at is that religion is man made. If God had created religion at least one woman should have been worthy of his attention. As for more women in religion than men, go to any church and count them you will find out.

Even God is labeled as He, you know how absurd that is.

[Dreamcatcher]

All the prophets are men. All the religious books are written by men (bible, qoran, torah etc.).

Even though women are very active in religion, why God didn't pick a woman or inspire a woman to write such a book.

 

How can you be so sure that "God" "picked" anyone to write such a book? You are taking as granted things that still need to be proven to those who don't share your beliefs. For many, it is far from obvious that the authors were "prophets" in the first place.

 

What i'm getting at is that religion is man made.

 

Well THIS is correct... Religion is "man" made, not "God" made!!!!

 

Even God is labeled as He, you know how absurd that is.

 

And do you know fpr sure who labelled "him" as a "he"? Again, you are taking as granted things that need to be assessed critically, in the context of the traditions and the prejudices of the time when they had been written.

[Dreamcatcher]

I believe law and order comes from God.

 

I may be asking too much, but would the believers please explain what they mean under "God".

I "believe" that this would help us to better understand what exactly each forumer has in mind, and in particular prevent nasty folk like me from posing the archetypal question - WHAT GOD?

 

P.S. Ooops, it seems like I forgot to say hello to everyone! Sorry for that!!!!

[Yervant1]

How can you be so sure that "God" "picked" anyone to write such a book? You are taking as granted things that still need to be proven to those who don't share your beliefs. For many, it is far from obvious that the authors were "prophets" in the first place.

 

Don't you worry my friend we are on the same page. It was a sarcasm I guess you missed it. You have to read between the lines, if I'm going to write everything assuming that no one will understand unless I say a tone, that way I will insult your inteligance.

 

Well THIS is correct... Religion is "man" made, not "God" made!!!!

 

You see this tells you what I'm saying.

 

And do you know fpr sure who labelled "him" as a "he"? Again, you are taking as granted things that need to be assessed critically, in the context of the traditions and the prejudices of the time when they had been written.

Again my point is created by men for men. It had nothing to do with anything else.

[Dreamcatcher]

Again my point is created by men for men. It had nothing to do with anything else.

 

Fair enough! One specification though: for the benefit of a certain group of men at the expence of all other people. Religion, and Christianity is no exception, is probably the best tool of control, domination and brainwashing ever invented by man.

[Sip]

Nice posts Dreamcatcher!

 

I just wanted to add that suppose even everything is as the religious claim ... suppose God is this super powerful thing that does all the stuff they say.

 

Now wouldn't God have come up with a better way to spread his word than have some guy(s) write it down in a book? Would it be toooooo much to ask for this ultra powerful God to show up to give a lecture or something? Maybe do a 30-second superbowl ad or find a way to spam his message to all inboxes. I think God could do it. But why doesn't He?

 

1. He doesn't care.

2. He doesn't want to be bothered.

3. He doesn't have the time.

4. He doesn't exist maybe?

 

But basically, it all comes down to either God is limited, or a prick, or maybe the God we created 2000 years ago isn't really all that useful anymore.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Sip

[Yervant1]

Fair enough! One specification though: for the benefit of a certain group of men at the expence of all other people. Religion, and Christianity is no exception, is probably the best tool of control, domination and brainwashing ever invented by man.

Hi Dreamcatcher, read my post #89 in this thread. Yu're repeating what I said there.

[Ludwig9]

I may be asking too much, but would the believers please explain what they mean under "God".

I "believe" that this would help us to better understand what exactly each forumer has in mind, and in particular prevent nasty folk like me from posing the archetypal question - WHAT GOD?

 

P.S. Ooops, it seems like I forgot to say hello to everyone! Sorry for that!!!!

 

Hello and welcome Dreamcatcher. I don't understand your question by asking - what they mean under "God". Secondly, what do you define as a believer?

[vava]

But basically, it all comes down to either God is limited, or a prick, or maybe the God we created 2000 years ago isn't really all that useful anymore.

 

Ah-ha! And there it is. Religion was "created" to answer questions that needed some answers. A noble reason indeed, however somewhere along the way, as religion became more and more powerful, "religion" was usurped by those who were out for personal/political gain. As they say power corrupts - with the corruption of religion as we understand it now, it has lost all credibility and relevance today (IMO). Welcome dreamcatcher

 

One more question, if God created men, who created God? God has always existed? Heum.... I don't really buy that....

[aSoldier]

Now wouldn't God have come up with a better way to spread his word than have some guy(s) write it down in a book?

He has His people to spread the Good News.

 

Would it be toooooo much to ask for this ultra powerful God to show up to give a lecture or something? Maybe do a 30-second superbowl ad or find a way to spam his message to all inboxes.

With all due respect, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Period.

 

But basically, it all comes down to either God is limited, or a prick, or maybe the God we created 2000 years ago isn't really all that useful anymore.

 

Basically, you aren't familiar with God.

 

If I see God, I believe in Him because I see him. Well, I don't see God, but I believe in Him because of faith.

 

And since you don't like Bible quotes, I'll give you one from someone you might feel comfortable with.

 

"The link between man & God is faith. That is all that keeps things moving & alive."

- Albert Einstein.

[Sip]

He has His people to spread the Good News.

 

You thought my sarcastic remark was really stupid but you don't see any problems with what you just said? Why would God need people to spread anything? I thought he was the all powerful

 

 

But since you brought up Einstein, you might enjoy this quote of his:

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein

 

Edited February 24, 2006 by Sip

[Dreamcatcher]

You thought my sarcastic remark was really stupid but you don't see any problems with what you just said? Why would God need people to spread anything? I thought he was the all powerful

But since you brought up Einstein, you might enjoy this quote of his:

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein

 

 

 

Sip, I will come back to this later today. But in the meantime, I agree with you that Einstein should be left alone by "believers".

 

This is what he said:

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

And also:

 

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

 

from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side".

 

There is of course more but I think this is enough.

[aSoldier]

You thought my sarcastic remark was really stupid but you don't see any problems with what you just said? Why would God need people to spread anything? I thought he was the all powerful

But since you brought up Einstein, you might enjoy this quote of his:

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein

 

 

God doesn't "need" people to spread anything. Like I said, it's a matter of our faith & obedience to Him.

 

You can't just pray to God for Him to save you and take you up into heaven at the last minute. You must do His will here on earth.

 

Matthew 7:21

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

And I don't listen to Albert Einstein

[Dreamcatcher]

Hi Dreamcatcher, read my post #89 in this thread. Yu're repeating what I said there.

 

I see, Yervant1! Well I guess this should be obvious to any more or less reasonable person.

[Dreamcatcher]

Would it be toooooo much to ask for this ultra powerful God to show up to give a lecture or something? Maybe do a 30-second superbowl ad or find a way to spam his message to all inboxes.

 

With all due respect, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Period.

 

Ok, let me put it differently. We can safely assume that Bertrand Russell was not dumb, now can't we? (I hope you won't argue with me on that!).

 

So when we was reportedly once asked what he would say to God if he were to find himself confronted by the Almighty about why he had not believed in God's existence. He said that he would tell God "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!"

 

Nicer, but pretty much the same, eh?

[Dreamcatcher]

Hello and welcome Dreamcatcher. I don't understand your question by asking - what they mean under "God". Secondly, what do you define as a believer?

 

Hello and thanks Ludwig.

 

I think you understood my question perfectly well.

Still, I'll rephrase if you like: in order to have a meaningful discussion, we need some clarity as to what we understand by the term "God". Do we mean a supreme personal being, distinct from the world and creator of the world, who, for example, "ghost-wrote" certain scriptures, "artificially inseminated" certain virgins, and whose offspring defied the laws of physics by walking on liquid surfaces and turning water into alcoholic beverage?

Accordingly, a “believer” is a person who is convinced of the existence of such a supreme personal being, and of the truthfulness of the corresponding legend.

 

Or do we rather mean “the Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists”, “the spirit manifest in the laws of the Universe”?

In this case, a believer is someone who believes in the “spirit vastly superior to that of man”, but “cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation”.

 

Happy now?

[Dreamcatcher]

I don’t have the foggiest idea if any University has ever given this question in any exam (probably not!)… but enjoy it in the “context” of this thread before I “donate” it to Maral’s collection!

 

The Thermodynamics of Hell

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so profound that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

 

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

 

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

 

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

 

If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

 

If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

 

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting “Oh my God”!!!!

[Sasun]

Now wouldn't God have come up with a better way to spread his word than have some guy(s) write it down in a book? Would it be toooooo much to ask for this ultra powerful God to show up to give a lecture or something? Maybe do a 30-second superbowl ad or find a way to spam his message to all inboxes. I think God could do it. But why doesn't He?

God's word is available everywhere and to everyone, it is broadcast universally all throughout creation. There is no need for a special ad. Even if there was such an ad somebody would still be able to refuse watching it and yet complain why God does not show himself in another way.

 

It is we who choose not to listen to God's message. How do we listen? By deep meditation. All the prophets and saints who wrote about God practiced some form of meditation and witnessed God. If we spent as much time on seeking God as we seek wealth or mundane things then we will surely find God. The Christian tradition of prayer leads to states of deep meditation. I think it was St. Paul who said "pray unseasingly", which is essentially meditation on God. Unless you seek you will not find.

 

So to those who complain why they can't see or hear God, I would ask: what steps have you taken to know God? God does not have a special need to make himself known to all whining human beings. He is just fine whether or not we believe in His existence.

[Yervant1]

God doesn't "need" people to spread anything. Like I said, it's a matter of our faith & obedience to Him.

 

You can't just pray to God for Him to save you and take you up into heaven at the last minute. You must do His will here on earth.

 

Matthew 7:21

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

And I don't listen to Albert Einstein

sSebB make up your mind are you gonna quote Albert Einstein in for your defence or against. Several posts ago you quoted him, now you say you don't listen to him.