[the hog]

Why do you ask for a proof for something beebop is believing?

Because of the blanket self righteous comment that "Only believers go to heaven". Further Rolan, I have not asked him to prove it, I have asked on what authority he bases that statement.

If you can proove something you cannot believe in it, you know it.

And your point is....?

Nobody can proofe that there is a higher power, but many do believe it for one "reason" or another.

Many have tried to prove it Roland, and claim they have proved it. Look at the "proofs" of Thomas Aquinas for example.

And it is impossible to take away the religions from mother earth. There are at least 2.000.000.000 believers. I doubt that you can convince more then 20 % that they should abandon their religion.

Thats unfortunate! However 20% would be a fantastic start. Furthemore, I would not really call Bhuddism/Confucianism/Taoism a religion. I would suggest that these are more a philosophy of a way of life. There has NEVER been a war fought in the name of Bhuddism, for example.

And that you will stop a lot of violencef you cancel all religions is simply not true.

Yes it is. Look at the atrocities that have been commited by Christians and Muslims in the name of their religion throughout the ages. The Crusades, the exermination of the Cathars and other assorted heretics, the extermination of the Incas and Aztecs with the support of the Christian church, Serbs vs Croats etc etc....do you want me to go on?

It is true that there had been a lot of cruellness in the name of religions.

Agreed absolutely, but does this not contradict what you have written above?

But when they tried to stop the religion in the eastern world, did this stop cruel behaviour? And the same was true in the Nazi period in Germany. No religion but still violence.

I don't see your point here.

If you take away the religions, the cruel people will find other "reasons" for their violence. They will do it for their state, their race or just because they want to do it.

If you take away religions you will take away a lot of ethics, a lot of hope and a lot of good feelings and good behaviour for millions of people.

Now Roland, this is a point I totally and very strongly disagree with. Are you suggesting that people are "good" and have ethics because of religion? I hope not, because that is clearly incorrect. There are many atheists in this world. Are you suggesting that they are not good because they lack religion? That is the extrapolation of your argument.

But you surely would not stop violence.

No but there will be less of it.

You will stop the violence in the name of god. But the violent people will just change the name of their gang. They won´t kill you because you don´t believe in their god, but because you are white/ a capitalist/a women/ugly/a foreigner/ old or whatever.

See above.

[hrothgar]

BebopKid, on Aug 20 2007, 04:21 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 19 2007, 06:01 PM, said:

Better still, why not push for the abolition of religion? You would solve a lot of the world's problems in one hit.

I that Christians, Muslims, and Hebrews would fight that.

All three religions' people would die before forsaking the God.

I know I would, anything else would be a sin for me.

As I recall, Pride is also a sin.

Regardless, lets wander back to your original claim. For whatever reason, I am drawn to the following quote from the book of Matthew:

Quote

Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. ::: But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. ::: And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. ::: And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the Man. ::: And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee. ::: Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew. ::: And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Needless to say, your claim that you would never forsake your God doesn't seem to match the behavior of Jesus's own apostles. I'm curious whether you think that your faith is stronger than theirs. Alternatively, perhaps you don't think that you will ever actually be tested.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 19 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

Mike, also from your Wikipedia reference: (emphasis is mine)

Quote

In the frame of (patriarchal) European religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2]

It is this division of the world into two comprehensive domains, i.e., a black and white, right or wrong structure that so often throughout history has led to violence.~~

not exactly, winston... it is the failure to understand that this division exists, and an unwillingness to separate the sacred from the profane, that has led to the violence... the Buddhists have it right in this instance

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Aug 20 2007, 05:56 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 19 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

Mike, also from your Wikipedia reference: (emphasis is mine)

Quote

In the frame of (patriarchal) European religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2]

It is this division of the world into two comprehensive domains, i.e., a black and white, right or wrong structure that so often throughout history has led to violence.~~

not exactly, winston... it is the failure to understand that this division exists, and an unwillingness to separate the sacred from the profane, that has led to the violence... the Buddhists have it right in this instance

So do alcholics anonymous: Live and let live.

[1eyedjack]

BebopKid, on Aug 20 2007, 04:22 AM, said:

Only believers go to heaven.

Heh. This was of course one of the foundations of the argument that Hell is exothermic ...
http://www.blakjak.d...uk/gez_ihee.htm

[Al_U_Card]

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Was that prepositional or temporal? If temporal, np but if prepositional, then as long as there is no clergy, any religious grouping is just fine but if it is prepositional then are not clergy interposed between man and God and therefore before Him?

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 20 2007, 09:32 AM, said:

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Was that prepositional or temporal? If temporal, np but if prepositional, then as long as there is no clergy, any religious grouping is just fine but if it is prepositional then are not clergy interposed between man and God and therefore before Him?

no, unless one thinks of clergy as god

[Al_U_Card]

Or, if they insert themselves between you and your god. Like, by interpreting for you what god wants or what god says or what god means....like every religion with a clergy.....a preacher is just an interpreter with a persuasive manner. You want to believe so he just adds to the fervor. Unless priests and ministers study something else at seminary?

[mikeh]

Codo, on Aug 20 2007, 01:38 AM, said:

If you take away religions you will take away a lot of ethics, a lot of hope and a lot of good feelings and good behaviour for millions of people. But you surely would not stop violence.
You will stop the violence in the name of god. But the violent people will just change the name of their gang. They won´t kill you because you don´t believe in their god, but because you are white/ a capitalist/a women/ugly/a foreigner/ old or whatever.

The argument that we 'need' religion because it instills ethics is an old and demonstrably false argument. While Hawkins, in The God Delusion, seems, to me at least, to go a bit over the top in a couple of areas, I was fascinated by his recounting of the ethical thought experiments, which, according to him, seem to demonstrate a universal ethical response, independent of ethnicity, religion, or language.

I am not the least bit (consciously) religious, yet I don't think I have any remarkable lack of ethics.... I always tell cashiers or waiters if they have undercharged me, and I don't steal or cheat on my wife... and I don't cheat at bridge, etc . I have never assaulted anybody, I have never killed anybody or ordered the death of anybody... unlike many, many religious leaders.

A (business) partner of mine once said: 'show me a born-again christian and I'll show you either a pervert or a crook'

Now that was an overstatement, but experience as a lawyer has repeatedly shown the basic nugget of truth that underlies the exaggeration:

1. We acted (many years ago) for an RV dealer accused under our Trade Practices Act of running a bait and switch scam. He was a born-again Christian, and his group of co-believers held a prayer session for him. Not, I should add, to redeem him or guide him to salvation, but for an acquittal!

2. We acted for a member of a religious order ostensibly vowed to poverty... on his death, one of the assets was a Swiss bank account and another was an Italian villa. I am fudging the details slightly to avoid any breach of confidence, but the underlying point is true

3. Several local religious figures have been prosecuted, and convicted or successfully sued, for sexual misconduct

4. A few years ago, the then-highest price ever paid for residential real estate in our city was for an estate owned by the leader of a charismatic christian group... who raised funds ostensibly to promote God's work, but which somehow found its way into this waterfront home.

And this is just born-agains of whom I have some degree of personal knowledge.

BTW, my stories are limited to christians only because of the culture in which I live, which is predominantly Christian. I did once act indirectly on behalf of a Sikh, who ordered the murder of a young couple, and the removal of their hearts, to be brought back to him as proof: I gather he was widely viewed as a leader in the local Sikh religious community (not in the City in which I now live).

I am NOT saying that all members of all faiths lack morals, but, to me, it is demonstrably incorrect to argue that possession of an irrational belief in a paternalistic, tyrannical 'GOD' is necessary in order to preserve the already regrettable level of ethics in the world today.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Aug 20 2007, 04:05 PM, said:

Codo, on Aug 20 2007, 01:38 AM, said:

If you take away religions you will take away a lot of ethics, a lot of hope and a lot of good feelings and good behaviour for millions of people. But you surely would not stop violence.
You will stop the violence in the name of god. But the violent people will just change the name of their gang. They won´t kill you because you don´t believe in their god, but because you are white/ a capitalist/a women/ugly/a foreigner/ old or whatever.

The argument that we 'need' religion because it instills ethics is an old and demonstrably false argument. ~~

it's true that religion and ethics aren't necessarily linked... it's sad but true that some (most?) of the atrocities of history have been perpetuated by those proclaiming some sort of religious zeal... on the flip side, i don't personally equate religion with faith

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 20 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

Or, if they insert themselves between you and your god. Like, by interpreting for you what god wants or what god says or what god means....like every religion with a clergy.....a preacher is just an interpreter with a persuasive manner. You want to believe so he just adds to the fervor. Unless priests and ministers study something else at seminary?

i understand what you're saying but my point is that the commandment you quoted concerns worshipping another god... that said, you're correct that too many people lend too much weight to too many words of too many clergy

[BebopKid]

Since I was asked, I know that:

Jesus Christ taught that the only way to Heaven is to believe that Christ is the Son of God.

That Christ died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind.

That Grace is a free gift, but is must be taken by each person before they can enter Heaven.

That upon Baptism, believers receive the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus did, and belief becomes knowledge.

Every church member is a minister and responsible for ministering to those around them.

A Pastor (or other names) are responsible for studying the word of God and sharing that with a congregation. Not controlling the congregation.

A congregation member is responsible for studying the word of God and through the Holy Spirit discerning their purpose and actions.

All of this is done not for the glory of self but for the glory of the Father. If you see glory being brought to self, you can ignore that as that is not the proper intention of the Body of Christ.

Remember that no human, except Jesus Christ, has ever been perfect. One must look for God's love and perfection in imperfect people. That may prove difficult for some. And it makes organized religion look hypocritical to them.

There are evil powers that do not want us to see God's love and use the hypocrisy to blanket over God's glory.

It is up to each person to find the glory for their self.

God bless everyone. I hope you can find the peace that I have found.

[mike777]

It would be interesting to look at current leaders of some country who do not profess a belief in a higher power, or a God.

Off the top of my head it is tough to come up with leader in History who did not but I am sure there must be some. Any one got examples?

Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Kahns, Goths hmmm I think all did believe.

[Al_U_Card]

BebopKid, on Aug 20 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Since I was asked, I know that:

Jesus Christ taught that the only way to Heaven is to believe that Christ is the Son of God.

That Christ died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind.

That Grace is a free gift, but is must be taken by each person before they can enter Heaven.

That upon Baptism, believers receive the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus did, and belief becomes knowledge.

Every church member is a minister and responsible for ministering to those around them.

A Pastor (or other names) are responsible for studying the word of God and sharing that with a congregation. Not controlling the congregation.

A congregation member is responsible for studying the word of God and through the Holy Spirit discerning their purpose and actions.

All of this is done not for the glory of self but for the glory of the Father. If you see glory being brought to self, you can ignore that as that is not the proper intention of the Body of Christ.

Remember that no human, except Jesus Christ, has ever been perfect. One must look for God's love and perfection in imperfect people. That may prove difficult for some. And it makes organized religion look hypocritical to them.

There are evil powers that do not want us to see God's love and use the hypocrisy to blanket over God's glory.

It is up to each person to find the glory for their self.

God bless everyone. I hope you can find the peace that I have found.

As far as belief systems go, and for a stated structure, this one is as good as it is likely to get.

My objection is as far as absolutes go, absolute power corrupts absolutely and power and money go together and sadly religion is a faith based power-brokered business that has little to do with belief systems and a lot to do with the exercise of power.

This is an interesting link of the "other" version (not opposite, just different) of the gnostic gospel according to Thomas or Philip etc.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ory/pagels.html

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

[pbleighton]

Quote

It would be interesting to look at current leaders of some country who do not profess a belief in a higher power, or a God.

Off the top of my head it is tough to come up with leader in History who did not but I am sure there must be some. Any one got examples?

Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Kahns, Goths hmmm I think all did believe.

Or professed to, in order to assuage the prejudices of their countrymen.

For example, about half the current U.S. population says that they wouldn't vote for an atheist for President. This is, of course, as vile a predudice as held by those who wouldn't vote for a Christian, Jew, etc.

Widespread secularism is historically recent. Our day will come, Mike.
OTOH, we'll probably both be dead by then.

Peter

[mikeh]

mike777, on Aug 20 2007, 04:35 PM, said:

It would be interesting to look at current leaders of some  country who do not profess a belief in a higher power, or a God. 

Off the top of my head it is tough to come up  with leader in History who did not but I am sure there must be some. Any one got examples?

Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Kahns, Goths hmmm I think all did believe.

I forget the name of the French king who was offered the crown on the condition that he convert to Catholicism. He is reputed to have said that Paris is worth a mass.

One need not be much of a cynic to conclude that there went a leader who did not believe the religion he professed.

The fact that leaders use religion as a tool should come as no surprise to anyone.

Saddam Hussein was praised (by the US and others) in the 1980s for his secularism, but, on the eve of Gulf War II, he resorted to self-portrayal as a defender of an Islamic country threatened by infidels.

Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?

BTW, I pose those questions precisely because I think that both are far too intelligent to be true believers. One demographic point which seems proven beyond dispute is that there is a direct positive correlation between intelligence and atheism.

George Bush, on the other hand, is, I suspect, a true believer.. because for him, it makes life so much easier... but, then, nobody has ever accused the younger George Bush of having to cope with having a good intellect.

That there were, and are, truly religious leaders is NOT a sign that religion is a rational response to current knowledge.

1stly, religion and monarchial rule go hand in hand.. they each, historically, enable the other. It is no coincidence that the title of the British Queen includes the phrase 'Defender of the Faith' (ironically awarded, I believe, to Henry VIII by the Pope shortly before good-old Henry assumed the role of head of the church in England).

2ndly, if we go back far enough in history, or further to pre-history, belief in one or more Gods made perfect sense in terms of an ignorant species trying to impose some form of intellectual control over an environment that was often hostile or seemingly random.

It would have been irrational for a human, 50,000 years ago, to blame sub-microscopic entities for illness, for example. Thunder and lightning is far more readily explicable, to someone with zero scientific knowledge, as the expression of a god's wrath than as the passage of electrons between two zones of different electrical charge, and the associated rapid expansion of heated air.

So the belief in gods was a rational response, and the growth of religion a logical outcome of that belief, and no doubt appealed to the innate tendency of social animals to accept a dominance structure.

But the persistence of religion, and of a belief in any God, is, today, merely a reflection of the difficulty with which our minds are able to unlearn irrationalities programmed into us... whether by Christian priests, or Islamic mullahs, etc.

Since the ability to think critically about these issues, based on a broader understanding of the world and the universe, is relatively new in human history, and since leaders generally support the status quo, and are inherently conservative, it is no surprise that most leaders at least profess religious belief.

However, in the industrialized world, I doubt that there is any country other than the US in which public profession of a religious belief is viewed as a prerequisite for electoral success as President. That says a lot more about the US than it does about religion.

Oh, Mike... what religion does Putin ascribe to? What religion do the leaders of China subscribe to?

[mike777]

So if nonbelievers lie about their faith or if that is too strong...they make untrue or misleading statements is that ethical?

On another subject, I do believe not only actions but nonaction can be unethical.
Take the whole subject of snitching to the police.
IF someone has knowlege of crime that someone in their family did but takes no action informing the police, is that immoral?

How many Fathers or Mothers do immoral things or fail to take a moral action in the name of protecting their children at ALL Costs.

How many pay taxes for war or bullets or to pay others to fight a war they do not believe in?
How many of us fail to pick up rifle to fight in a war/cause we think is worthwhile?

How many of us follow some traffic laws and not others, so ok to follow some laws and not others and we get to choose which are moral or too much trouble to follow? How can that be ethical?

If you start including inaction into the discussion it is tough for any of us to be morally correct.

[mike777]

Oh, Mike... what religion does Putin ascribe to? What religion do the leaders of China subscribe to?
http://www.sipa.colu...Putin-faith.pdf

He does have spiritual advisers.

Chinese religion.

http://www.tibet.ca/...2002/3/5_2.html


http://www.lawreligion.org/

[luke warm]

BebopKid, on Aug 20 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Since I was asked, I know that:

Jesus Christ taught that the only way to Heaven is to believe that Christ is the Son of God. 

That Christ died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind.

That Grace is a free gift, but is must be taken by each person before they can enter Heaven.

That upon Baptism, believers receive the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus did, and belief becomes knowledge.

Every church member is a minister and responsible for ministering to those around them.

A Pastor (or other names) are responsible for studying the word of God and sharing that with a congregation.  Not controlling the congregation.

A congregation member is responsible for studying the word of God and through the Holy Spirit discerning their purpose and actions.

All of this is done not for the glory of self but for the glory of the Father.  If you see glory being brought to self, you can ignore that as that is not the proper intention of the Body of Christ.

Remember that no human, except Jesus Christ, has ever been perfect.  One must look for God's love and perfection in imperfect people.  That may prove difficult for some.  And it makes organized religion look hypocritical to them.

There are evil powers that do not want us to see God's love and use the hypocrisy to blanket over God's glory. 

It is up to each person to find the glory for their self.

God bless everyone.  I hope you can find the peace that I have found.

that pretty much sums it up

mikeh, on Aug 20 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

~~~ Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?

i don't know what the word "devout" means in this context... the trouble, as always, is that there are so many definitions of the word "christian" that it's hard coming to any conclusion... i know what i believe and i know why i believe it... i know what some others believe, but i'm not sure why they believe it

Quote

BTW, I pose those questions precisely because I think that both are far too intelligent to be true believers. One demographic point which seems proven beyond dispute is that there is a direct positive correlation between intelligence and atheism.

bill and hill are "far" too intelligent? what does that mean? is there some IQ cutoff, mike? i'd be offended by that if ... oops, i lost my train of thought

Quote

But the persistence of religion, and of a belief in any God, is, today, merely a reflection of the difficulty with which our minds are able to unlearn irrationalities programmed into us... whether by Christian priests, or Islamic mullahs, etc.

i know some christian apologists who would debate you on that "irrationalities" point, many of whom go so far as to actually say (gasp) that it's irrational *not* to believe in God... i can't speak for anyone but myself, but i have studied and come to my conclusions without being programmed - i think... although i do sometimes dream of a queen of hearts

mike777, on Aug 20 2007, 05:35 PM, said:

~~~ If you start including inaction into the discussion it is tough for any of us to be morally correct.

true... whether the laws are of man or God, they will be broken by thought, action, or inaction... which is, i think, the point

[mike777]

"Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?"

btw for whatever my opinion is worth I do think Bill Clinton has a deep faith and an active personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I do think Hillary truly believes in Jesus as her Savior. I do not think it is an act.