Christianity. Just another lie?

[blackcat]

And how can the common atheist speak of morals anyhow?

What is a common Atheist? Is s/he any different from an uncommon Atheist?

Your question reeks of the self-righteous nature of God believers and mainstream religion followers who arrogantly think because they have all the answers they also have an automatic and exclusive right to preach morality. There is no reason why an Atheist should not have high moral principles. There is also no reason to accept that a practioner of mainstream religion might not behave monstrously as there are many examples. Hitler for one, and a litany of "Christian" monarchs throughout the history of Europe.

[David WJ Sherlock]

yet another divisive thread. why are these necessary? Some of us choose a faith or belief, some of us don't.we should be propagating comradeship and togetherness. i don't think that a thread that basically says 'if you have a belief in x you're an idiot' is useful in any way, except to divide the forum.

I agree why do people keep using this forum to attack religion and God?
And when they do those of us who do still believe in Religion and God have no choice but to defend it.

Personally i cannot see why peopl go out of their way to attack religion, what exactly is the harm in people believing that if they are good and do good things that one day they might go to heaven. Surely religion prevents crime and prevents death and destruction.
If there was no religion where would we be?
In North Korea or China.
Where religion is ILLEGAL

I am not attacking God. I am attacking mans distortion of God via the scriptures.

[acrobat74]

I am not attacking God. I am attacking mans distortion of God via the scriptures.

That's understandable David WJ.

The thread title incites divisiveness though and will offend many who adhere to the Christian dogma.

Are we thus playing into the hands of those who only wish to divide and conquer?

[David WJ Sherlock]

I am not attacking God. I am attacking mans distortion of God via the scriptures.

That's understandable David WJ.

The thread title incites divisiveness though and will offend many who adhere to the Christian dogma.

Are we thus playing into the hands of those who only wish to divide and conquer?

I have to agree with you on that. I like to think that God is loving not the maniac the Bible makes him. The singer in my band is a complete Christian and will not see the Bible for what it really is. We never fall out over it, but we do not agree either.

[Frazzel]

it doesnt really matter whether someone is a believer in a religion or is an atheist or agnostic. You probably wont be very successful in persuading them that your view is the better one. Its most likely a waste of time or energy and unnecessarily divisive to do so.What matters is if they are seeing the facts about the international neo con fascist corporate elite who use religion or politics in their twisted machiavellian power politics with the ultimate aim of dividing us, confusing us making slaves of us and ruling us all! Those of all or no religion need to stand up and be counted in the long fight against them, to expose them, their lies, even if it takes generations we mustnt give up. As with all belief systems there are those who work for the freedom of the human spirit and those who work to enslave it. Those of the latter need to work together whatever their persuasion.

[Emmanuel]

"Your question reeks of the self-righteous nature of God believers and mainstream religion followers who arrogantly think because they have all the answers they also have an automatic and exclusive right to preach morality."
Yes, its called sarcasm and i wasnt preaching morality.
Dr Dawkins isnt a "common" atheist cos he wrote some books about it.

Hitler wasnt a Christian, he stole a Christian symbol (the swastika) which was stolen from Vedic philosophy.

Yes this thread is divisve, but clearly shows that people are curious about questions such as where do we come from and where are we going? Is there a divine plan and why is there such evil in the world?
If we stop such enquiries we are limiting ourselves and our spiritual evolution.

[blackcat]

Hitler wasnt a Christian

Roman Catholic to his dying day.

[Mr-Bridger]

`Hitler wasnt a Christian, he stole a Christian symbol (the swastika) which was stolen from Vedic philosophy.`

We`ve been here before.... Hitler was raised Catholic and even served on the alter when he was a boy, Himmler was raised in the same faith aswell.

[Emmanuel]

With all due respect, dont catholics class themselves Christian?
I thought catholicism took Christ into consideration too.
Ok he was a Catholic with Jewish heritage.

[xmasdale]

I have not been in a church that is steeped in hiararchy

I've been on loads that are steeped in heirarchy. Been in a fair few that arent though. Think most Quakers would take objection to that asertation (but seeing as they're Quakers, I wouldnt really worry about it)

Speaking as a Quaker, I agree with the general thrust that most churches are steeped in heirarchy. That's one reason I don't go to them. Others are that I don't believe in their theology and I don't believe in having an official theology, (as was set out in the Nicene creed in the fourth century).

Quakers constitute a spiritual society in which everyone is free to follow his/her own beliefs, to define themselves as Christian or non-christian and, in Europe at least, follow a practice of group silent meditation. They also tend to support each other in taking up acts of service to the wider comunity, wherever they feel themselves to be led (in my case to the 911 truth movement).

We are self governing, which means that each local meeting is sovereign but co-operates with with other meetings in their locality. No one can tell an individual what to do or think. The furthest that is ever gone is advice, friend to friend.

[David WJ Sherlock]

I've been on loads that are steeped in heirarchy. Been in a fair few that arent though. Think most Quakers would take objection to that asertation (but seeing as they're Quakers, I wouldnt really worry about it)

Speaking as a Quaker, I agree with the general thrust that most churches are steeped in heirarchy. That's one reason I don't go to them. Others are that I don't believe in their theology and I don't believe in having an official theology, (as was set out in the Nicene creed in the fourth century).

Quakers constitute a spiritual society in which everyone is free to follow his/her own beliefs, to define themselves as Christian or non-christian and, in Europe at least, follow a practice of group silent meditation. They also tend to support each other in taking up acts of service to the wider comunity, wherever they feel themselves to be led (in my case to the 911 truth movement).

We are self governing, which means that each local meeting is sovereign but co-operates with with other meetings in their locality. No one can tell an individual what to do or think. The furthest that is ever gone is advice, friend to friend.

I have to admit Noel. I do not know a lot about the Quakers. Is this an accurate portrayal of the faith.

The Nicene Creed, Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or Icon/Symbol of the Faith, is an ecumenical Christian statement of faith accepted in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian, the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism, the Reformed churches, Methodism, and many other forms of Protestantism. (Wikipedia).

[xmasdale]

Speaking as a Quaker, I agree with the general thrust that most churches are steeped in heirarchy. That's one reason I don't go to them. Others are that I don't believe in their theology and I don't believe in having an official theology, (as was set out in the Nicene creed in the fourth century).

Quakers constitute a spiritual society in which everyone is free to follow his/her own beliefs, to define themselves as Christian or non-christian and, in Europe at least, follow a practice of group silent meditation. They also tend to support each other in taking up acts of service to the wider comunity, wherever they feel themselves to be led (in my case to the 911 truth movement).

We are self governing, which means that each local meeting is sovereign but co-operates with with other meetings in their locality. No one can tell an individual what to do or think. The furthest that is ever gone is advice, friend to friend.

I have to admit Noel. I do not know a lot about the Quakers. Is this an accurate portrayal of the faith.

Well I hope it's a reasonable shot at it, though I would call it rather a path than a faith.

The Nicene Creed, Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or Icon/Symbol of the Faith, is an ecumenical Christian statement of faith accepted in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian, the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism, the Reformed churches, Methodism, and many other forms of Protestantism. (Wikipedia).

That's a fair summary of the status of the Nicene creed in most Christian denominations. In fact as soon as it was agreed, after the Emperor Constantine had imposed his version of it on to the various squabbling Christian factions, those who had thus got Rome on their side started to persecute those who did not subscribe to the creed as "heretics".

Quakers do not subscribe to it and therefore in earlier times suffered much persecution.

We do not have any creed. Rather we share a form of "worship", silent group meditation, and tend to have a common outlook on spiritual matters eg: regarding love and truth as of paramount importance as a guide to life and a belief that such guidance is to be found within each individual, rather than being imposed by doctrine or creed.

The most we have is "Advices and Queries". You can read the current version of Britain Yearly Meeting's Advices and Queries, which we revise and update every twenty years of so, here: http://quakersfp.live.poptech.coop/qfp/chap1/1.02.html

This forms the first part of a longer book called Quaker Faith and Practice, to be found here: http://quakersfp.live.poptech.coop/qfp/

The problem with describing what Quakerism is about is that we are all individuals following our particular paths and therefore tend to describe what we have found in Quakerism in different ways. Many describe themselves as Christians and those who do will often define that as seeing the life and teachings of Jesus as exemplary and they therefore seek to follow his example. Many Quakers, though, are uncomfortable with the label Christian as they feel it implies an acceptance of traditional Christian creeds and doctrines which, as a society, we do not subscribe to.

Many describe themselves as agnostic or universalist; some as Jews or Buddhists or as Hindus. There are a few who even describe themselves as atheist.

Personally I prefer the universalist label, because I believe the ability for humans to find inward guidance is a universal part of human nature, regardless of any religion.

I feel that the eighteenth century US Quaker and anti-slavery campaigner, John Woolman, described this attitude acccurately in the following words:

There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath different names; it is, however, pure and proceeds from God. It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren. - John Woolman, 1762



Here is a quotation from a modern Quaker who who is a Vedantist Hindu Swami:

Remember Jesus' answer to the woman of Samaria: 'Neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father... God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and in Truth.' In the depth of meditation, in the gathered meeting we rise above all limitations. Gone are the concepts of Quakerism and Vedanta. Gone are the ideas of being a Christian or a Hindu. All these concepts are valid on their own level. They have their place, but they are transcended when we merge our minds in Spirit. I believe this is what Jesus and all the other World Teachers wanted us ultimately to do. - Swami Tripurananda (Jonathan Carter), 1979


Does any of that help?

[xmasdale]

`The gospels are history, not stories. `
without evidence they are stories, a work of fiction

I believe the Gospels are really 'myths' and I see myths as a good thing. They are stories which have a multi-leveled spiritual meaning. But if you don't understand what I'm on about, try looking at the works of the psychiatrist, Carl Gustav Jung, particularly the book he co-authored aimed at the general public rather than the medical profession, named 'Man and his Symbols'. It has helped me a lot in understanding what religion is about.

A 'myth' is a story which endures because it contains wisdom. Don't look for historical accuracy in myths; you won't find it there. We have no way of telling how accurate the stories about Jesus are, but we can learn spiritual values from those stories and from the stories told in other religions.

`My substantive point anyway was that Jesus was a historical person, he lived`
oh you will find reference to people called Jesus alot in the time he was supposed to have graced our Earth ( it was a very common name) but wheres the evidence that any of them were the son of a supposed God?????

I think he probably was (though I know David Icke insists he was invented as a mind-control mechanism. He maintains there is no evidence of the historical existence of Jesus other than the New Testament and other religious writings. But lack of evidence for something is not evidence of the lack of something).

But this 'Son of God' claim is pure theology. Even according to the canonical Gospels Jesus did not claim to be the son of God. He called himself the son of Man. At any rate if God is our Father, we are all sons and daughters of God. Though that word 'father' is rather formal. It's worth remembering that Jesus used the Aramaic language word 'Abba' which is probably best translated into modern English as 'Dad' or 'Daddy' and it was an attempt to get away from a formal, distant, reverential concept of God, towards an informal friendly one.

[David WJ Sherlock]

"But lack of evidence for something is not evidence of the lack of something"

I am going to get that line in my next song.

[xmasdale]

The thread title incites divisiveness though and will offend many who adhere to the Christian dogma.

Are we thus playing into the hands of those who only wish to divide and conquer?

Actually I think it's rather a good thread and a good title. The title has got people debating a serious subject. People have been reasonably behaved - not too many ad hominem attacks - and the whole question of why people have certain beliefs is being explored.

I don't have the answer to why some people have certain beliefs. I started as a kind of wishy-washy Church of Englander, in my teens became an atheist who thought that anyone who believed in God was indulging in wishful thinking and must have a screw loose, and in my late twenties had some astonishing spiritual experiences which totally changed my perspective forcing me to leave the former atheism behind as an arrogant phase. Then, and this was perhaps the strangest experience, in a dream I was lead to the Religious Society of Friends (nicknamed Quakers) where I found wonderful, open-minded people with whom I could share spiritual insights.

Why some people have these life-changing experiences while others don't, I have no idea. It has left me finding certain truths within religious teachings and scriptures, but also an awful lot of odious garbage which some, to my mind deluded, individuals revere as God's infallible truth. To give you just one example of such garbage in the Bible, try 1 Samuel 15, verses 2 and 3.

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Here we see God instructing King Saul to commit genocide on the luckless Amalekites. And what had they done wrong? Opposed the invading Israelites who had tried to take over their land. In other words they had been put in much the same position as the Palestinians are in today. And that justifies genocide - even killing babies? If that is the true nature of God, I want nothing to do with God.

But of course it is actually the spin of the anonymous writer of 1 Samuel, trying to justify a genocide after the event, by alleging it had been ordered by God.

Plus ca change...

[Disco_Destroyer]

I'll try to post a little about my beliefs when I'm more awake (not really shock that is how my eyes feel ) I nearly posted something the other day. Cheers Noel interesting stuff. I like the idea of an open house that gives you freedom to explore, sounds more like a club than a religion though, i guess there must be some house rules

[TmcMistress]

One of my favorite articles from The Onion, figured it was appropriate...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29745

[Disco_Destroyer]

One of my favorite articles from The Onion, figured it was appropriate...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29745

That sounds like out of the frying pan into the fire to me

[xmasdale]

I guess there must be some house rules

Can't think of any - only "advices".

[blackcat]

But lack of evidence for something is not evidence of the lack of something

The trouble is many people take the lack of evidence of something NOT existing as proof that "something" therefore exists. The burden logically falls on those who claim something exists to offer proof of existence. There is no evidence that an elephant is in orbit around the Earth. This lack of evidence suggests there is no orbiting Jumbo - it does not in any way mean there MIGHT be elephant in orbit around the Earth.

[xmasdale]

But lack of evidence for something is not evidence of the lack of something

The trouble is many people take the lack of evidence of something NOT existing as proof that "something" therefore exists. The burden logically falls on those who claim something exists to offer proof of existence. There is no evidence that an elephant is in orbit around the Earth. This lack of evidence suggests there is no orbiting Jumbo - it does not in any way mean there MIGHT be elephant in orbit around the Earth.

Yes, that's just how I used to see it, Blackcat, but when you have had amazing extatic experiences in which you become conscious of your geater Self, the Self which you remember being before you incarnated into this lifetime, the Self which you were before you descended into the amnesia of this incarnation, you become conscious of a much less restricted human existence, one which transcends the boundaries of our earthly lifespan. It is then that you see this life as an illusion or as a mere dream. Once you have had that vision you never forget it. It brings about new concepts which stay with you all your life.

I can't prove to you the validity of it and so I wouldn't even try. It is not up to me to prove there is an Elephant orbiting the earth, because if you believe there isn't that is where you're at. You have to tread your own spiritual path. No one can do it for you. You're at a stage where there is no God? That's fine. In a sense there is no God. I agree with you: there is no old man pulling the strings of our existence.

But each truth is but a reflection of an intenser substance. I think 17th century Quaker, Isaac Penington, put it well:

All Truth is a shadow except the last, except the utmost; yet every Truth is true in its kind. It is substance in its own place, though it be but a shadow in another place (for it is but a reflection from an intenser substance); and the shadow is a true shadow, as the substance is a true substance. - Isaac Penington, 1653

That may well come across to you as gobbledigook, Blackcat, and I'm afraid I can't help that, but it will speak to some readers, especially those who have had transcendental experiences.

[petros]

Hitler wasnt a Christian

Roman Catholic to his dying day.

Yes I knew this. Catholicism has a history of ant-semitism. The book Rome, Babylon the Great and Europe by Bob Mitchell has a great chapter on this.
available here:
http://stmatthewpublishing.co.uk/

There is a website run by and ex catholic priest called Richard Bennett. He now spends his life telling Catholics that they still need to get converted to biblical Christianity. So there is some debate about one might mean by Christian.
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/

[petros]

Petros said

the word religion is only used about 4 times in the whole of the new testament and even then it is qualified of disqualified by the context.
eg.
In the first chapter of James' epistle it mentions man's religion being vain and pure or true religion being helping the poor.

The other mention is in the first chapter in the letter to the Galatians where Paul is explaining how all his religious devoltion profitted him nothing as he had not known God.

Thanks Petros. Didnt know that. Very valuable to know.

Good stuff Petros.

Thank you. I'll flesh this out a little then. I did a word search of the entire bible for the word 'religion' and came up with this:
(religion)
occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the KJV
Acts 26:5; Galatians 1:13-14 ; James 1:26-27
http://www.blueletterbible.org/

I did the same with the Qu'ran
The word religion/religious is used at least 20 times and upto 75 times depending on who's tranlation you use.
http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

Most interesting.

[TonyGosling]

This argument against the Bible is all a bit weird

Surely the distortion of religion and God's message is to do with those who reject the Bible or distort it - such as.... wait for it... the deist freemasons.

Personally i cannot see why peopl go out of their way to attack religion, what exactly is the harm in people believing that if they are good and do good things that one day they might go to heaven. Surely religion prevents crime and prevents death and destruction.
If there was no religion where would we be?
In North Korea or China.
Where religion is ILLEGAL

I am not attacking God. I am attacking mans distortion of God via the scriptures.

[kbo234]

And how can the common atheist speak of morals anyhow?

What is a common Atheist? Is s/he any different from an uncommon Atheist?

Your question reeks of the self-righteous nature of God believers....

This stuff is somehow close to the heart of the matter. God-believers believe what they believe. Christians believe what they believe.....so, if put on the spot, they are bound to say what they believe.

However, this is a tricky business to get right. A believer's faith should be humble yet confident.........and never arrogant.

Self-righteousness and spiritual pride are un-Christian.

In Mark's gospel Jesus says to Peter, "And what do the people say about me?"

"They say you are good, master."

Jesus replied, "I am not good. Only God is good."

He also said that "The children are the greatest amongst us." Children, of course, tend to have no ideas about God or theology at all.....but they do have an instinct for fairness, equality and a very clear eye for spotting wickedness.

Although I profess Christianity, I do not doubt that there are many non-believers out there who are more 'Christian' than I am. I recognise that holding a faith is not necessarily the point. A spirit of love and truth is the point and that is the landscape of humanity in general, not just the religious.

It is just that I see this spirit in Christ and his teaching (did not Christ say the above clearly and brilliantly in the parable of the 'Good Samaritan'?) and I need a reference point.....a higher authority that demands perfection and to whom I must defer.

....otherwise I might sometimes go with my own impulses and do bad and violent things.

"Do as thou wilt?"....No way........surely most of us would do great harm if we followed this edict?

[TonyGosling]

Religion - to bind back - from the Latin
Either means a sense of permanence and the immutability of historical events (anti-spin and anti-propaganda, even anti-Murdoch!) or else to tie someone up. I prefer the former take on the latin.

In English, this work is known as The Institutes of the Christian Religion or Calvin's Institutes. This title, however, may not be the best translation from the original Latin, Institutio Christianae Religionis. The Latin word religio at the time did not have its modern definition as "religion". The idea of a distinct religious system or denomination at the turn of the 16th century was unknown, because there was only one acknowledged Christian church. The word religio (literallly, "to bind") meant the bond that unites humans to God, as exemplified in the monastic vow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes ... gion#Title

I did a word search of the entire bible for the word 'religion' and came up with this:
(religion)
occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the KJV
Acts 26:5; Galatians 1:13-14 ; James 1:26-27
http://www.blueletterbible.org/

I did the same with the Qu'ran
The word religion/religious is used at least 20 times and upto 75 times depending on who's tranlation you use.
http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

Most interesting.

[xmasdale]

This argument against the Bible is all a bit weird

So would you accept this Biblical supposed instruction of God's to commit genocide as something "believers" should emulate?

1 Samuel 15, verses 2 and 3.

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

[TmcMistress]

In their defense, it's usually argued (and not untruthfully) that the New Testament put that old-school, Old Testament vengeance stuff in the grave.

The other side of that coin, however, is that there's still plenty crazy stuff to see in the NT.

Part of the overarching problem is people that aren't well educated on their own faith. I tried pointing out to a Christian friend the other day that the Rapture is mentioned nowhere by name in the NT, and the idea of it is only vaguely referenced in Thessalonians (and even then, it's subject to a fair amount of interpretation); when I suggested to him that this likely means the idea of the Rapture was invented and inserted by early church leaders as a means of creating false divisions / a fake sense of empowerment, etc., he refused to even listen.

[kbo234]

The other side of that coin, however, is that there's still plenty crazy stuff to see in the NT.

Have you an example or two from the gospels (not Revelations, which is, it is hard to disagree, pretty 'crazy')

I have had little problem with the four gospels providing they are not taken too literally.

[petros]

Even according to the canonical Gospels Jesus did not claim to be the son of God. He called himself the son of Man.

This statement is plainly false.

Jesus claimed to be God and the son of God on numerous occasions throughout all the Gospels. This is a lie that I have heard repeated by a muslim when I was in Leeds. If you are looking for the exact phrase "I am the son of God" then that is not a logical argument against the doctrine of the incarnation.

Jesus called God his father. He said he was sent by his father and talked about the if you believe in the son that God sent then you will be saved. As in the famous verse John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Also the Gospels record a voice from heaven where God calls Jesus his son.

Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 17:5
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark 1:11
And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

and finally

John 9:35-37
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

I hope that settles it.

Try this article:
http://delveintojesus.com/articles/20/D ... f-God.aspx
...

There is no reason why an Atheist should not have high moral principles.

Yes. Many athiests are highly principled. However there is no actual moral code in their thinking that they can keep or break. The merely have notions like 'the common good' or 'do as you would be done by'. In the Western world these would be lifted from our Christian heritage as people accepted the equality of man and 'love thy neighbour' because the Bible said so.

Athiests have no basis for objective moral values because their is no universal moral law giver, there is no God in their thinking. Francis Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias do an excellent job of explaining this in their books 'The God who is There' and 'Can man Live without God' respectively.