Is God religious?

[dudewithasock]

I say no, because he doesn't seem like the type to have a huge ego.

Your thoughts?

[1-wheeled-grape]

well in Christianity they follow a god, so surely god cannot. Unless there is a higher more powerful being above god, therefore throwing the religion out as it is believed god is the most powerful, and a higher being would question gods power.
Or god is religious but follows ideas instead of a god and bible, as he was there first?

[Rezinha]

Does God believe in God?
I mean, does he believe in himself? Is that the question?
Hahah

[DSchmitt]

that is a DEFINITE lolwut.

[dudewithasock]

Rezzy: The question is open to interpretation, I wanted to see what people think.

[Rezinha]

Or... does God believe in Shiva? In Ganesha?
Because, if he does, then it's yes.
But, if he thinks 'Oh, that crap that humans insist in believe... Shiva, HA HA. So ridiculous. I should kill them all, stupid humans.' then, no.
But, I'd rather choose lolwut as well.

And I'm looking foward to see Biggestbtc comments. They are the best ever, in all threads.

[BillyTheMountain]

Does Rezzy believe in herself?

[dudewithasock]

Does Rezzy believe in herself?

Is Rezzy a goddess? :eek:

[Rezinha]

Does Rezzy believe in herself?

Oh Billy, thank you so much for the compliment.

[Rezinha]

Is Rezzy a goddess? :eek:

Of course Matt! Did you any doubt about that?

[BillyTheMountain]

Oh Billy, thank you so much for the compliment.

:p;)

[phlegm]

Religion is a human construct. What would one even mean by "God is religious"? :confused:

[Rezinha]

Religion is a human construct. What would one even mean by "God is religious"? :confused:

Use your imagination!

[BillyTheMountain]

Human is a human construct. What would one even mean by "Humans are religious"?

[BillyTheMountain]

Definitions of religious on the Web as pertaining to God being religious:

concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church;
having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity;
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

REM song: Losing my religion

[BillyTheMountain]

I say no, because he doesn't seem like the type to have a huge ego.


religion is about destroying the ego and merging with the mass of humanity. atheists object to this, and are attached to their ego.

[Rezinha]

Definitions of religious on the Web as pertaining to God being religious:

concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church;
having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity;
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

REM song: Losing my religion

When I was younger, me and my brother we used to sing "That's me and Spawn like, losing my religion.
Yeah, I was very bad at English.

[dudewithasock]

religion is about destroying the ego and merging with the mass of humanity. atheists object to this, and are attached to their ego.

Well God certainly can't be an atheist, or she would cease to be in a puff of logic.

But if he was super religious, she'd have to believe in herself, worship himself, all the time, and I think she is humbler than that.

[skrobo]

Well God certainly can't be an atheist, or she would cease to be in a puff of logic.

But if he was super religious, she'd have to believe in herself, worship himself, all the time, and I think she is humbler than that.

do you believe in yourself?
or are you too busy... i'll not mention what i had here :)

[dudewithasock]

That's not all I do, thankyouverymuch.

[johnfoss]

Religion is a human construct. What would one even mean by "God is religious"? :confused:To me it means, does God think all that religious worshiping stuff necessary/appropriate? Or is that area of most religions wrong. That is, the part about how you have to accept/respect/bow down to/etc. the same God that makes earthquakes, floods the Earth and smites people.

Or, does God look upon his creations, and all their myriad religions, as something simply humorous? Or even as an experiment, to see if they can improve the human condition, or in general do more good than harm in the world? There is a lot of both from religion, so there's something to be said for either side of that question.

Of course if God just observes, then he/she need not be religious. You can believe in yourself without being religious. And you can't be an atheist if you're God.

A more fun question might be "What does God think of religion"?

[Rezinha]

To me it means, does God think all that religious worshiping stuff necessary/appropriate? Or is that area of most religions wrong. That is, the part about how you have to accept/respect/bow down to/etc. the same God that makes earthquakes, floods the Earth and smites people.

Or, does God look upon his creations, and all their myriad religions, as something simply humorous? Or even as an experiment, to see if they can improve the human condition, or in general do more good than harm in the world? There is a lot of both from religion, so there's something to be said for either side of that question.

Of course if God just observes, then he/she need not be religious. You can believe in yourself without being religious. And you can't be an atheist if you're God.

A more fun question might be "What does God think of religion"?

If there are malls and banks up there, in heaven, God fo' sure LOVES religion!

[Rezinha]

Or maybe God is making a huge savings account in order to return to Earth and buy a Wii, a PS3 an iPod and all that stuff that they don't have in heaven and have fun up there. What do you think tithes are for? He's gonna be a gangsta when he returns, oh yeah!

[forrestunifreak]

No.

To me, religion, or "religiosity" is what human nature injects into Christianity. Many Christians, myself included, sometimes prefer to call themselves Christ followers or some other simple term instead of just using the blanket term of Christian and all the religiosity implied by it these days.

My 2 cents after not reading all the thread. :)

[BillyTheMountain]

And you can't be an atheist if you're God.

A more fun question might be "What does God think of religion"?

Should I answer that last question, as GOD?

GOD can be thought of as a human experience, like love, anger, dreams. Do you believe dreams exist?

[Rezinha]

Should I answer that last question, as GOD?

GOD can be thought of as a human experience, like love, anger, dreams. Do you believe dreams exist?

I don't believe that you exist, Billy.
And I think we're all schizophrenic here, and Billy is our imaginary friend.

[JJuggle]

<sigh>
Should I answer that last question, as GOD?
That you would even bother asking shows progress Billy.

GOD can be thought of as a human experience, like love, anger, dreams. Do you believe dreams exist?
Love, anger, and dreams all have a basis in biology. Other animals experience them. Do they experience God, too?

Independent of anything you may have read or been taught what triggers the experience of God? What specific event occurs in a life such that the visceral and universal response is, "GOD!"?

</sigh>

[BillyTheMountain]

What specific event occurs in a life such that the visceral and universal response is, "GOD!"?


Reading posts like this by you makes people respond: "GOD."

Mater of fact, many PMs typically begin by people writing: GOD! What the hell is with that Raphael character?!

[BillyTheMountain]

GOD is not the only distinctly human experience.

That does not invalidate the experience.

[Rezinha]

That is getting so confusing. :confused:

[JJuggle]

GOD is not the only distinctly human experience.

That does not invalidate the experience.
If God is not the only distinctly human experience, why don't you ever pick another as part of your argument? Are purchasing DVDs from Amazon or grating parmesan cheese not particularly illustrative of a Godly experience?

[BillyTheMountain]

If God is not the only distinctly human experience, why don't you ever pick another as part of your argument? Are purchasing DVDs from Amazon or grating parmesan cheese not particularly illustrative of a Godly experience?

Do you think animals having sex are saying, in their own language, Oh GOD OH GOD!??

[JJuggle]

Do you think animals having sex are saying, in their own language, Oh GOD OH GOD!??
Only in Ralph Bakshi movies.

[johnfoss]

What do you think tithes are for?The church, of course. You can't take it with you...

[phlegm]

To me it means, does God think all that religious worshiping stuff necessary/appropriate? Or is that area of most religions wrong. That is, the part about how you have to accept/respect/bow down to/etc. the same God that makes earthquakes, floods the Earth and smites people.



I wonder how many people actually attribute those things to their experience of God today. That seems so hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

I think people worship stuff whether it's religious stuff or not. Religion should be about showing people the stuff that is worth worshipping--like love. Christianity, as I've come to understand it, is about having faith that God will be fully revealed as love--that is, love is the underlying structure of ultimate reality.

I was recently thinking about my past question of the practical difference between atheism and theism (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74895). And, perhaps a key difference is an ethos about the priority of values in one's worldview. It seems that many atheists believe that reason is the starting point to promote a better world--consider The Reason Project (http://www.reasonproject.org/).

In contrast, Jesus refers throughout the Gospels to a coming Kingdom of God that is perfect love. So, if one believes that perfect love is the ultimate end, then love must be given a higher priority than reason. Reason is still important but subsidiary.

(And that is not to say that all atheists don't love, just that love seems to be considered less important than reason for some atheists. If not, then why would one spend so much effort promoting reason when there is so much hatred in the world?)

[JJuggle]

It seems that many atheists believe that reason is the starting point to promote a better world--consider The Reason Project (http://www.reasonproject.org/).

In contrast, Jesus refers throughout the Gospels to a coming Kingdom of God that is perfect love. So, if one believes that perfect love is the ultimate end, then love must be given a higher priority than reason. Reason is still important but subsidiary.

(And that is not to say that all atheists don't love, just that love seems to be considered less important than reason for some atheists. If not, then why would one spend so much effort promoting reason when there is so much hatred in the world?)
Speaking personally as an atheist I would have to say that love and reason stand as equally important. I'm fond of the quote from Wilhem Reich who said, "Love, work, and knowledge are the wellsprings of life. They should also govern it."

[BillyTheMountain]

To me it means, does God think all that religious worshiping stuff necessary/appropriate? Or is that area of most religions wrong. That is, the part about how you have to accept/respect/bow down to/etc. the same God that makes earthquakes, floods the Earth and smites people.

Or, does God look upon his creations, and all their myriad religions, as something simply humorous? Or even as an experiment, to see if they can improve the human condition, or in general do more good than harm in the world? There is a lot of both from religion, so there's something to be said for either side of that question.

Of course if God just observes, then he/she need not be religious. You can believe in yourself without being religious. And you can't be an atheist if you're God.

A more fun question might be "What does God think of religion"?

John,

Most atheists don't believe in a GOD that persons of Faith (older than age 12) also don't believe in, the one referred to throughout this thread: That is, a GOD who does human-like things like, in your words, look upon his creations as something simply humorous, or even as an experiment, or just observe.

Persons of Faith see GOD as all-encompassing, as a verb rather than as a noun, as LOVE and loving actions, like phlegm (TPBM) just talked about.

In reference to the area I bolded from your quote above: Because most religious are as much orthopractic as orthodoxic, the practice supports the belief. [This is often discussed in terms of, for example, when Christians outlawed the practice of Judaism in Spain, without practice FAITH faded. Christians inadvertently created Jewish atheists -- Karen Armstrong discusses this]

Imagine if the practice of Science were outlawed. No more refereed journals, labs, polls, stats, and funding. Imagine.

the practice within limits supports the FAITH in Science as much as it does one's FAITH in GOD.

Billy

[Rezinha]

The church, of course. You can't take it with you...

Oh yeah? Damn, I thought I could take it with me! That ruined my life.

[cbs]

The answer is pretty simple.

Religion was totally created by man. Religion is MAN's interpretation, not God's; therefore, God is not religious. This also validates/invalidates all religions. Really cracks me up when people think they can "buy" their way into heaven. It is sad that people try to do this and dont see it as hypocritical amongst the "religious" greedy lol.

[phlegm]

Speaking personally as an atheist I would have to say that love and reason stand as equally important. I'm fond of the quote from Wilhem Reich who said, "Love, work, and knowledge are the wellsprings of life. They should also govern it."

But what do you do when love and reason conflict? Doesn't the love embodied by Jesus defy reason at times?

If you don't mind sharing, how do you understand the concept of love?

Do you identify love with Jesus? Someone else?

If not, how is it possible to understand love in a concrete and non-relativistic way without connecting it to a human example?

(Given the relational nature of love, doesn't an understanding of love need to be connected with a person?)

[JJuggle]

But what do you do when love and reason conflict? Doesn't the love embodied by Jesus defy reason at times?

If you don't mind sharing, how do you understand the concept of love?

Do you identify love with Jesus? Someone else?

If not, how is it possible to understand love in a concrete and non-relativistic way without connecting it to a human example?

(Given the relational nature of love, doesn't an understanding of love need to be connected with a person?)
Love and reason never conflict. Can you give an example of when you think they do?

Love is not relational. Love is absolute, like respiration. Like breathing it can be obstructed, but that represents sickness and/or crisis.

I guess I understand love to be exactly how Billy defines God. However, I object to the use of the word and idea of God because that inserts an unnecessary layer between humanity and our experience of love. With that layer inserted the experience of love is at best muted and at worst perverted.

[BillyTheMountain]

Honesly, Raphael, how far must you reach to support your argument? Now you are quoting a man who died in a US Federal prison [Wilhelm REICH] as a criminal?

Others will quote the most famous person who was executed as a criminal

[phlegm]

Love and reason never conflict. Can you give an example of when you think they do?

Love is not relational. Love is absolute, like respiration. Like breathing it can be obstructed, but that represents sickness and/or crisis.

I guess I understand love to be exactly how Billy defines God. However, I object to the use of the word and idea of God because that inserts an unnecessary layer between humanity and our experience of love. With that layer inserted the experience of love is at best muted and at worst perverted.

Isn't self-sacrificing love unreasonable?

Why is love not both relational and absolute? Isn't profound love only experienced by us in relation, in a loving community?

As a Christian, I think the obvious theological way to connect human experience to absolute love is to note the prominent theme in the Gospels of Jesus, as a human example of love, announcing the coming Kingdom of God as perfect love.

How does Billy define God?

[simonb]

This thread makes my brain hurt...

[Biggestbtc]

And I'm looking foward to see Biggestbtc comments. They are the best ever, in all threads.
I finally got around to clicking the thread. Sorry to keep y'all waiting.

Definitions of religious on the Web as pertaining to God being religious:

concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church;
From this definition: Yes. God is concerned about his church.

having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity;
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
From these definitions: Yes. He definitely believes in himself.

God is not "religious" in the sense of one trying to be good so they can have a good karma or whatever. The question of this thread itself is not a very good one. Def lolwut.

[BillyTheMountain]

John,

Most atheists don't believe in a GOD that persons of Faith (older than age 12) also don't believe in, the one referred to throughout this thread: That is, a GOD who does human-like things like, in your words, look upon his creations as something simply humorous, or even as an experiment, or just observe.

Persons of Faith see GOD as all-encompassing, as a verb rather than as a noun, as LOVE and loving actions, like phlegm (TPBM) just talked about.

In reference to the area I bolded from your quote above: Because most religious are as much orthopractic as orthodoxic, the practice supports the belief. [This is often discussed in terms of, for example, when Christians outlawed the practice of Judaism in Spain, without practice FAITH faded. Christians inadvertently created Jewish atheists -- Karen Armstrong discusses this]

Imagine if the practice of Science were outlawed. No more refereed journals, labs, polls, stats, and funding. Imagine.

the practice within limits supports the FAITH in Science as much as it does one's FAITH in GOD.

Billy

By the way, I just got word back from GOD.

GOD prefers to be described as "spiritual" rather than religious.

Also, GOD really liked what BTM wrote to John (above), and likes Raphael's idea that GOD is LOVE.

[JJuggle]

That you would even bother asking shows progress Billy.
By the way, I just got word back from GOD.
I retract my previous statement.

[johnfoss]

...That is, the part about how you have to accept/respect/bow down to/etc. the same God that makes earthquakes, floods the Earth and smites people.
I wonder how many people actually attribute those things to their experience of God today. That seems so hundreds if not thousands of years ago.I think you give the average person too much credit. Maybe it's just "the media" but whenever you hear a person at a disaster or accident site talking about it (survivors, obviously), there's the inevitable person who asks why God would do this? How many people thank God for winning big awards? Now maybe it's the media's fault. Maybe they keep trawling for quotes until they get a God one. But what does that mean? Are they the ones that are hundreds/thousands of years out of date? Or do they just assume their audience is?
I think people worship stuff whether it's religious stuff or not. That's an awesome quote, one I would put in my sig line had I not just changed it a few days ago. I agree with you on that, and wish that more professed Christians had your approach to the whole thing.
...perhaps a key difference is an ethos about the priority of values in one's worldview. It seems that many atheists believe that reason is the starting point to promote a better world--consider The Reason Project (http://www.reasonproject.org/).Though love can prevail without reason, doesn't it work even better when the two work together? Though sometimes reason may mess up love, the opposite is probably true just as often. I think a world that's as crowded as ours needs plenty of both to survive and improve.

Vulcans: the ultimate atheists. :)

[johnfoss]

John,

Most atheists don't believe in a GOD that persons of Faith ... also don't believe in, the one referred to throughout this thread: That is, a GOD who does human-like things like, in your words, look upon his creations as something simply humorous, or even as an experiment, or just observe.I'll accept your statistic as something you made up off the top of your head, like most of your other topics. :) And didn't you see the movie Oh God (starring John Denver)? The movie was popular enough. In it, George Burns (God) basically states that he created the world and set it in motion, but it's up to us who live here to "make it work." If I have to choose between BTM or the George Burns God, I'm more inclined to beieve George Burns.
Persons of Faith see GOD as all-encompassing, as a verb rather than as a noun, as LOVE and loving actions, like phlegm (TPBM) just talked about.Again, the correct way to express that is that *some* persons of faith... There are still plenty out there who still perceive God as a white-robed man in the sky (with a big beard) who listens to every prayer and decides who gets hit by a bus and who gets cancer. I wouldn't believe this was true, but I hear it expressed all the time, usually from people who are trying to make sense of bad situations.
Imagine if the practice of Science were outlawed. No more refereed journals, labs, polls, stats, and funding. Imagine.Some religious groups are trying to do this to our public schools, whether they realize it or not. I think many governments have done the same over the years.


By the way, I just got word back from GOD.

GOD prefers to be described as "spiritual" rather than religious.If you had created a user account for God instead of passing His word along, it would have more credibility. In any case, he's really going to take the fun out of this thread if he's going to participate in it...

[Rezinha]

Why religious threads can never be funny?
People always take them so seriously...

[Biggestbtc]

Why religious threads can never be funny?
People always take them so seriously...
Girl, these are serious issues. We're talking matters of life and death. (Maybe not on this thread...)

[JJuggle]

Why religious threads can never be funny?
People always take them so seriously...
Of course they can be funny.

From Old Jews Telling Jokes:

http://blip.tv/play/gp0JgY%2BgJJHoJQ

[phlegm]

I think you give the average person too much credit. Maybe it's just "the media" but whenever you hear a person at a disaster or accident site talking about it (survivors, obviously), there's the inevitable person who asks why God would do this? How many people thank God for winning big awards? Now maybe it's the media's fault. Maybe they keep trawling for quotes until they get a God one. But what does that mean? Are they the ones that are hundreds/thousands of years out of date? Or do they just assume their audience is?

It is true that people have diverse beliefs about God, and God is often mentioned very casually without much thought behind what is meant.

I don't think it's unreasonable to thank God for winning an award if one believes that God is the source of creative power and is the ultimate reality in whom "we live, move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28). It's not that God chose one to win an award but that the mere possibility of winning an award depends on a loving God, one that doesn't dominate us but allows us to create futures deemed worthy of honor by others.

Asking why God would allow something bad to happen is a starting point for digging into a deeper understanding of God. Questions like that drive me to read what theologians think. Unfortunately it seems that many people ask difficult questions and then make up their own answers without looking for what the experts are saying.

The above points to a serious flaw in the idea that reason can be a starting point for a better world--it assumes too much of people. Many seem to be unwilling to reason for themselves. On the other hand, love is appreciated and pursued by all.

That's an awesome quote, one I would put in my sig line had I not just changed it a few days ago. I agree with you on that, and wish that more professed Christians had your approach to the whole thing.

I think the idea of people inevitably worshiping is pretty common among Christians. For example, 'sin' could be loosely defined as worshiping or valuing the wrong stuff. "For all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" (Romans 3:23) means that we all have a tendency to worship the wrong stuff. Not to sound like a broken record, but Christianity is about orienting oneself in worship and faith toward the right stuff, like the perfect love of the coming Kingdom of God.

Though love can prevail without reason, doesn't it work even better when the two work together? Though sometimes reason may mess up love, the opposite is probably true just as often. I think a world that's as crowded as ours needs plenty of both to survive and improve.

Of course, love and reason are both valuable and should work together. Yet, I don't see any mention of the importance of love on the website for The Reason Project. "Secular values" are mentioned, but love isn't specified. Also, I'm skeptical that profound love can really be understood in a purely secular way--if nothing else, it seems we must at least admit that our present understanding of love is rooted in religious tradition.

Resolving conflicts of love and reason require prioritizing one over the other. I gave the example of self-sacrificial love. If one prioritizes love, then self-sacrificial love is possible. Whereas, if one prioritizes reason, then self-sacrificial love is impossible. Isn't it clear that Jesus tended to prioritize love over reason?

I'm reminded of a PBS Frontline video I saw about Christianity in China and specifically the idea that Capitalism needs Christian values. This page has some information and a video. (http://cases.som.yale.edu/china/index.php?page=5&subMenu=5&option=God%20Is%20My%20Ceo) Further, in this excellent video (http://vodpod.com/watch/1857147-bill-moyers-journal-cornel-west-serene-jones-and-gary-dorrien) Bill Moyers interviews theologians who expound the idea that greed is the sin at the root of our present economic crisis. Is self-sacrificial love vital to support our economic and political theories?

[JJuggle]

Also, I'm skeptical that profound love can really be understood in a purely secular way--if nothing else, it seems we must at least admit that our present understanding of love is rooted in religious tradition.
I admit no such thing.

Resolving conflicts of love and reason require prioritizing one over the other. I gave the example of self-sacrificial love. If one prioritizes love, then self-sacrificial love is possible. Whereas, if one prioritizes reason, then self-sacrificial love is impossible.
Self sacrificing love can only be thought to conflict with reason if it is considered unreasonable to be self sacrificing which you have in no way demonstrated. I believe Gandhi and Dr King both wrote that self sacrifice can be an ultimate demonstration of love and the most reasonable course of action.

[phlegm]

Self sacrificing love can only be thought to conflict with reason if it is considered unreasonable to be self sacrificing which you have in no way demonstrated. I believe Gandhi and Dr King both wrote that self sacrifice can be an ultimate demonstration of love and the most reasonable course of action.

Any specific sources? You're right. I didn't demonstrate anything.

Doesn't an ultimate demonstration of love as self sacrifice require faith in a specific future to look back and judge one's action as reasonable?

I'm open to what you are saying about self sacrifice being a "reasonable" course of action, but I think this sense of "reasonable" is different than the sense I used before because this sense is open to faith. Whereas, I suspect that what The Reason Project means by "reasonable" tries to obscure any trace of faith. With a conception of reason that attempts to close itself off from faith, I don't see how self sacrifice can be reasonable.

[manon1wheel]

wow are you serious....

[Rezinha]

We shouldn't take life so serious because it's going to kill you anyway.

[JJuggle]

Doesn't an ultimate demonstration of love as self sacrifice require faith in a specific future to look back and judge one's action as reasonable?
No. It requires the judging of odds to be acceptable.

I'm open to what you are saying about self sacrifice being a "reasonable" course of action, but I think this sense of "reasonable" is different than the sense I used before because this sense is open to faith.
If your sense of reason includes an element of faith, then we are talking about two different things, I guess.

[dudewithasock]

wow are you serious....

Absolutely.

[phlegm]

No. It requires the judging of odds to be acceptable.

Hmm, so since you didn't give me any specific sources, I'm going to guess. Are you saying that Dr. King judged the odds as favorable of achieving racial equality, and so he devoted his life sacrificially toward that end? How would he have judged such odds?

If your sense of reason includes an element of faith, then we are talking about two different things, I guess.

I didn't mean to propose that reason includes and element of faith, just that reason can interact with faith in meaningful ways.

I would say Dr. King had faith in a loving God (or absolute love, if you prefer), and so he devoted his life sacrificially toward love as racial equality.

If his life's work were based only on a belief that the odds were in his favor, would we even be justified in saying that he sacrificed his whole self for love? For example, if he judged the odds to be 60% in favor of achieving racial equality, wouldn't that imply that he really only sacrificed 40% of himself?

[JJuggle]

Hmm, so since you didn't give me any specific sources, I'm going to guess. Are you saying that Dr. King judged the odds as favorable of achieving racial equality, and so he devoted his life sacrificially toward that end? How would he have judged such odds?



I didn't mean to propose that reason includes and element of faith, just that reason can interact with faith in meaningful ways.

I would say Dr. King had faith in a loving God (or absolute love, if you prefer), and so he devoted his life sacrificially toward love as racial equality.

If his life's work were based only on a belief that the odds were in his favor, would we even be justified in saying that he sacrificed his whole self for love? For example, if he judged the odds to be 60% in favor of achieving racial equality, wouldn't that imply that he really only sacrificed 40% of himself?
I didn't provide sources because I am foisting these off as my own ideas. :)

What Dr King called love, I call love.

What Dr King called faith, I call playing the odds. If you go to the coffee cart on the corner of your office and the odds are even one or two percent less than 100 that after you give the fellow your money, he won't give you any coffee, then it is unreasonable to continue to purchase your coffee there. However, if you believe there is even a small likelihood that your efforts will promote the well being of millions of people, then it is reasonable to act in ways that are self sacrificing.

Calling playing the odds faith makes it all seem more attractive. But in the end it is hoping for a favorable outcome. Even ignoring the question of atheism, within the universe of the faithful there are so many variations of faith that, in fact, what you are doing is playing the odds that your version is correct.

And if Billy is correct, that the bearded God of old is a straw man argument we atheists rely on, then, in fact, that is evidence that reason is prevailing and eventually the word God will be stricken and all that will be left will be love and reason.

Or maybe not.

[johnfoss]

I'm skeptical that profound love can really be understood in a purely secular way--if nothing else, it seems we must at least admit that our present understanding of love is rooted in religious tradition.Got to agree with Raphael on that one. Love came before religion. So one could say love is an ingredient in religious creation, but a baby loves its mom before it's capable of abstract thinking. If anything, abstract thinking may take away from our ability to have "pure" feelings. But since religion is a creation of Man, love came first.
Resolving conflicts of love and reason require prioritizing one over the other.Perhaps, but it does not require that one always be the top priority. I think those sorts of decisions, on a small scale, get made by most of us on a regular basis. Sometimes we choose the path of reason, and other times we choose the emotion-based one. One might call this "human nature" but we all do it. In each decision, perhaps, we weigh the merits of reason vs. emotion (yes, I'm pooling love with all emotions here). And who is to say which decision is the right one?
Doesn't an ultimate demonstration of love as self sacrifice require faith in a specific future to look back and judge one's action as reasonable?No. It only requires a *specific* future for any survivors to judge whether the right decision was made. But a different future might determine that the wrong decision was made. Of course in either future, the determination of what's right or not is going to be subjective...

But perhaps a key word in your quote is faith. There is faith without religion. As Raphael mentioned, buying from the guy at the coffee cart. We have to have faith that he's going to give us the coffee, or we might not trust to give him the money first. That type of faith is perhaps the foundation of civilization, that we can trust each other to do basic things so we can live together. Dr. King could have simply had faith in the ability of us Americans to gradually do the right thing, and that may have been his motivation to take the risks he did.

[BillyTheMountain]

If you think Dr. King was playing the odds, you've got it wrong.

When you're willing to run through the fire for someone you love, that has nothing to do with calculations.

And babies may not be capable of love, just attachment.

But nevertheless, love was probably around long before religion. Religion was the institutionalization of love, a way to express our gratitude, but atheists have no world wide gratitude to express.

[phlegm]

Calling playing the odds faith makes it all seem more attractive. But in the end it is hoping for a favorable outcome. Even ignoring the question of atheism, within the universe of the faithful there are so many variations of faith that, in fact, what you are doing is playing the odds that your version is correct.

I don't see my Christianity as "playing the odds" that my religion is right. I acknowledge the limits of human language to express ideas about God, so I'm content with the expressions that are the most meaningful to me.

Got to agree with Raphael on that one. Love came before religion. So one could say love is an ingredient in religious creation, but a baby loves its mom before it's capable of abstract thinking. If anything, abstract thinking may take away from our ability to have "pure" feelings. But since religion is a creation of Man, love came first.

First, I think we're talking about two different kinds of love. I'm not talking about love as a feeling or emotion. I'm talking about love as an ethos for relating to others.

I don't think which came first, love or religion, matters for what I said. Sure, perhaps love itself does not require religion, but don't our present understandings of profound love come from religion? Are there any secular sources for an understanding of profound love? Mustn't a "secular" understanding of love separate itself entirely from religion?

Perhaps, but it does not require that one always be the top priority.

Well, I suppose it depends on what one believes about love. If one has faith in a future revelation of God as love, then a universal priority makes more sense than if one believes that love only exists within our finite experience.

No. It only requires a *specific* future for any survivors to judge whether the right decision was made. But a different future might determine that the wrong decision was made. Of course in either future, the determination of what's right or not is going to be subjective...

Right, the future is specified for the survivors you speak of, and they can judge (subjectively) whether the past historical person's action was right or wrong. However, from the perspective of the historical person in their present, they had to act in faith toward a provisionally specified future among many contingent futures.

The aim of what I've been saying is not really concerned with the faith required in the day-to-day minutia, like the faith required to buy coffee. I believe Dr. King lived by a greater faith that reaches much farther into the future than simply trusting the failing social structures of his day that allowed racism to persist. To this day we haven't achieved absolute peace or a society void of racism, so, without invoking our own faith in peace and love, can we even judge if Dr. King's pacifism and work toward racial equality will be judged as ultimately reasonable?

[JJuggle]

If you think Dr. King was playing the odds, you've got it wrong.
That isn't what I said, but the finer the detail, the greater your distortion.

When you're willing to run through the fire for someone you love, that has nothing to do with calculations.
Again, you're distorting my point.

But nevertheless, love was probably around long before religion. Religion was the institutionalization of love, a way to express our gratitude, but atheists have no world wide gratitude to express.
Gratitude is very useful and important in interpersonal relations, but is irrelevant with respect to the kind of love that Phlegm and I are talking about.

[johnfoss]

Religion was the institutionalization of love, a way to express our gratitude, but atheists have no world wide gratitude to express.Or is it that atheists don't necessarily have anyone that *requires* their love to "save" them? Beyond that, atheists have just as much capability to express gratitude as anyone else. You may believe otherwise, but you can't prove it.
I'm not talking about love as a feeling or emotion. I'm talking about love as an ethos for relating to others.Okay, assume we are talking about the same kind of love. As Billy mentioned, a baby may lack the sophistication for that type of love, but it develops with a person's cognitive abilities.
Sure, perhaps love itself does not require religion, but don't our present understandings of profound love come from religion?I don't think so. Profound love had to exist before Man could put a name to it. One can have profound love without religion, but different individuals can argue until the end of time as to whether those loves are equal or equitable.
However, from the perspective of the historical person in their present, they had to act in faith toward a provisionally specified future among many contingent futures.I think it's the same thing. If you *don't* think your hoped-for future will come to pass, it would likely change your decision in the present.
To this day we haven't achieved absolute peace or a society void of racism, so, without invoking our own faith in peace and love, can we even judge if Dr. King's pacifism and work toward racial equality will be judged as ultimately reasonable?I think it's safe to say yes to that, at least based on the present situation. Since the process is not yet over we have to "have faith" that things will continue in the direction they're going to fully play out though.

Once we stop judging people by their color and religion, then we can work on judging them by their sexual orientation, cognitive ability and whether they believe in the currently fashionable forms of deities. :)

[BillyTheMountain]

Or is it that atheists don't necessarily have anyone that *requires* their love to "save" them?

You are so stuck in the Christian point of deity. Is that the only one atheists don't believe in?

Love has far less to do with cognitive ability as with empathic/affective capacity. The psychopath loves like a lizard. Ever watch that friendly serial killer -- Dexter? Lots of cognitive ability.

[BillyTheMountain]

Gratitude is very useful and important in interpersonal relations, but is irrelevant with respect to the kind of love that Phlegm and I are talking about.

You make it easy to distort the point when you're fuzzy.

I agree that love is irrelevant to the kind of love we're talking about.

We are grateful for the day, the night, everything, which is hard to fit into typical interpersonal relations. We are grateful for the love that is sent our way, mostly for the capacity to experience it, cuz not everyone does.

[phlegm]

I don't think so. Profound love had to exist before Man could put a name to it. One can have profound love without religion, but different individuals can argue until the end of time as to whether those loves are equal or equitable.

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. You're postulating a prehistoric age when religion as we know it didn't yet exist but people still had ideas about profound love. Now, who is playing the creation myth card? ;)

Of course, all those supposed prehistoric ideas about profound love passed through religion before we inherited them. So, I think we're still without a purely secular understanding of profound love.

If you *don't* think your hoped-for future will come to pass, it would likely change your decision in the present.

Sure, and that is a way the God I have faith in works in the present and directly influences my life.

I think it's safe to say yes to that, at least based on the present situation. Since the process is not yet over we have to "have faith" that things will continue in the direction they're going to fully play out though.

What you're saying very closely parallels the Gospel message. Jesus constantly referred to the coming Kingdom of God, which is the "fully playing out" of "the process" we are part of. As a Christian, I share Jesus' faith in a coming Kingdom of God.

What you're saying, on its own, doesn't seem to give any reason to hope for peace and love as the end of the process, because events toward many diverse ends occur in our present world. Jesus is the reason for that hope for Christians. Why do you have faith that love and peace will prevail?

[JJuggle]

You make it easy to distort the point when you're fuzzy.

I agree that love is irrelevant to the kind of love we're talking about.

We are grateful for the day, the night, everything, which is hard to fit into typical interpersonal relations. We are grateful for the love that is sent our way, mostly for the capacity to experience it, cuz not everyone does.
Billy, I'm grateful that the people who deal with you daily on a face to face basis probably don't have to confront the dick you are here. ;) :) :D

Based on my experience on the Internets, the odds are good that my gratitude is well founded.

And say it with a heart full of love.

[johnfoss]

Why do you have faith that love and peace will prevail?Because I like the world put forth by Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek. In it, we humans, as a group, are striving to better ourselves. The world he showed had developed way beyond the world of the 1960s, to a point where some people probably couldn't even take it seriously at the time.

In today's world, too many of us are merely trying to survive day-to-day (food/shelter) while others compete with each other to take as much money to the grave as possible. Many others, of course, are doing great things and building the way to this better world. I like to think we will keep getting better. Hopefully with lots of improvement before we actually start meeting other intelligent species.

[Rezinha]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ca861703b8/religion-from-danny

[phlegm]

Because I like the world put forth by Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek. In it, we humans, as a group, are striving to better ourselves. The world he showed had developed way beyond the world of the 1960s, to a point where some people probably couldn't even take it seriously at the time.

Are you serious? I've never heard anyone profess a Roddenberrian faith before.

Google reveals that a Reverend at the UU church in Palo Alto draws insight from a Roddenberrian faith. (http://www.uucpa.org/sermons_04/sermon040328.html)

[johnfoss]

Are you serious? I've never heard anyone profess a Roddenberrian faith before.Me neither. I didn't say I believe in Gene Roddenberry (though I almost met him once; front row on a local talk show he was guest on in the 80s). But what's the problem with appreciating his depiction of a future human race?

Fiction? Any story about the future has to be fiction. But fiction can be a powerful educator, motivator, depictor and inspire people as much as recent history or ancient legend.

[BillyTheMountain]

Fiction? Any story about the future has to be fiction. But fiction can be a powerful educator, motivator, depictor and inspire people as much as recent history or ancient legend.

How strong is your Faith in Fiction? Your Faith in the Future?

[BillyTheMountain]

Got to agree with Raphael on that one. Love came before religion.

John,

I know you're a fan of Dan Savage the renowned analingust. In his Q & A response to a gay christian he echos your thinking (were you guys talking?) and adds a christian comment in his second piece of advice too:

Q: You were recommended to me by an acquaintance familiar with your column and podcast. Lacking other resources at this particular moment, I have decided to write to you. I am a 20-year-old male, and as such have certain desires that almost all 20-year-old males have (desires of a sexual nature). However, I am deeply religious. Religion has been for me a source of strength in my times of weakness, a rock in the times of storm, and above all a home to return to when I have lost my path. In the teachings of my particular religion, to indulge the particular desires I am experiencing will condemn me to fates too grotesque to mention. I am rational enough to realize that there is no way that I can “pray away” these desires. My question is this: How does one prepare for a life of celibacy and solitude (as that is what is required of me to remain a member of this particular faith)? Based off of what my friend has told me, I know you have little respect for religious practices and beliefs. However, these desires are not exactly something I can talk about with other members of my spiritual community. And while I am currently seeking counseling related to other issues, I was wondering what a so-called expert on sex and sexuality would have to say.
Clever Acronyms Escape Me

A: Get over yourself, faggot.

If it’s possible for you to act on your unnamed-but-easily-identified desires in an ethical manner—if you desire to do whatever it is you desire to do with consenting adults who desire to take their turn doing it to you—this so-called expert on sexuality thinks you should crawl down off that cross and find yourself a boyfriend already. (“Pray away” the gay? I’m guessing you’re Christian, probably Catholic.) And if you experience a moment’s anxiety the first time you stick your ass in the air—pull the Jesus stick out first!—just remind yourself that things have been crawling on top of each other and madly humping away for 850 million years. Sex came first, then humanity (200,000ish years ago), then religion came along tens of thousands of years after that. Which may explain why religion, when pitted against sex (really old) and human nature (pretty old), always loses. Always.

If you’re on the cross, CAEM, it’s because you put yourself up there. Which means you’re not some poor mortal trapped between a cosmic rock and an existential hard place; you’re just another closeted cocksucker with a martyr complex.

Look, kiddo, you get one life, one chance at happiness. If it gives you a spiritual semi to fantasize about a God who created you gay but forbids you to act on your emotional and sexual attraction to men, knock your damn self out. But you can have a boyfriend and Jesus, too—look at the pope—you just have to do what people have been doing since the first terrified idiot invented the first bullshit religion: improvise. Find yourself a brand-new religion or sect, or jettison the bits of your current faith that don’t work for you. If you know anything about the history of Christianity—and it sounds like you don’t—then you know that the revisions began before the body was cold. No reason to stop now.

And finally, CAEM, there is no God—you do realize that, right? No hell below us, above us only sky, etc.


Q: I’m an only child, male, born to a single mom. I’m about to turn 21, and I’ve been with a great guy for over a year. I may be in love. We both have steady jobs, and we want to move in together. He came out to his parents after we started dating, and now I think it’s my turn. Problem is, I don’t know how to break it to my mother. She’s a tiny Mexican woman who isn’t afraid of smacking me. I’m afraid to tell her. She always talks bad about the gay lifestyle because she considers herself Christian, although not the churchgoing kind. When and how do I break the news that she’s not getting grandkids from me?
Her Only Male Offspring

A: Your mom is my favorite kind of “Christian.” She’s not the “churchgoing kind,” as that would require some personal sacrifice on her part (of her Sunday mornings, at least). And she certainly didn’t let her faith interfere with her sex life. (I’m assuming your conception was something short of immaculate*.) But when it comes to other people’s lives, when it comes to your sexuality and mine, HOMO, then her Christian values kick into high gear.

[phlegm]

Me neither. I didn't say I believe in Gene Roddenberry (though I almost met him once; front row on a local talk show he was guest on in the 80s). But what's the problem with appreciating his depiction of a future human race?

Fiction? Any story about the future has to be fiction. But fiction can be a powerful educator, motivator, depictor and inspire people as much as recent history or ancient legend.

I'm not sure what you would mean specifically by "believing in Gene Roddenberry". I only labeled your faith Roddenberrian to say that you value the ideas he put forth in his stories.

What you seem to be proposing is faith in ideals understood through fictional stories. In contrast, my Christian faith is grounded in the historical person of Jesus, not a set of ideals.

Jesus did not present an idealistic way to understand the world as a philosopher would have. Rather, the Gospels depict a fundamentally different way of being--turning away from the past and anticipating a future revelation of the loving God. This way of being was actualized in the life of Jesus.

So, Christianity is not ideology. Ideology has the problem that its adherents define the ideals. Whereas, the Kingdom of God is ruled by God alone, so Christians must always acknowledge that their conceptions of love, peace, justice, etc. are only provisional understandings of the Kingdom of God. In the end God will judge.

[johnfoss]

I only labeled your faith Roddenberrian to say that you value the ideas he put forth in his stories.Okay. Who wouldn't? Except maybe those dirty Klingons...
What you seem to be proposing is faith in ideals understood through fictional stories. In contrast, my Christian faith is grounded in the historical person of Jesus, not a set of ideals.Understood. We just might not agree on the historical part.
I know you're a fan of Dan Savage the renowned analingust.Never heard of him.

[BillyTheMountain]

Is Gene Roddenberry religious?

[Fooby]

lolwut

[phlegm]

Okay. Who wouldn't? Except maybe those dirty Klingons...

Why should anyone value Roddenberry's ideals or any other ideology? Peer pressure?

Understood. We just might not agree on the historical part.

Are you saying Jesus didn't actually live toward a future revelation of the loving God? If not Jesus, who do we credit for such a way of living? Even contemporary examples like Dr. King and Mother Teresa point to Jesus.

[BillyTheMountain]

There are those who question the occurrence of the historical Jesus and the moon landing.

[Peripatet]

Dan Savage

Priceless. World needs more people who can clearly articulate a well-reasoned position.

There are those who question the occurrence of the historical Jesus and the moon landing.

They can usually be identified by their fashionable headgear:

http://localcrank.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/tinfoil-hat1.jpg

Well, the moon landing ones, anyway. ;)

[nimblelight]

GOD: I'm terribly complex. Someone must have created me.... but who??
http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00137/mythology_files/mythological_creatures/dragon/chinese_dragon.jpg

[Jerrick]

We shouldn't take life so serious because it's going to kill you anyway.

If were going to die, why not just be as serious as possible?

[nimblelight]

If were going to die, why not just be as serious as possible?
'cuz after we die we go on a great adventure through the underworld.

I hear there are hot demon chicks.
:p

[BillyTheMountain]

If you accept that Jesus is God, He acted pretty religious, but advocated violating many of the religious codes and laws.

Some people think violating the Codes makes Him less religious.

I don't.

[nubcake]

The saddest thing about religion is that all the followers will never get to realise after they die how retarded they have been their entire lives... because by then they cease to exist i.e. no gates up above or adolph hitler down below to reflect on their lives. Just a full stop end of sentence goodbye thanks for playing *fade to black*.

When we are young we have Santa Claus, but at some point we smarten-up or are simply told the truth or discover by accident the truth. At that point Santa Claus is understood to be a creation of man, and used to "make bad children good". Remember kids, Santa leaves only a lump of coal for you if you are naughty.

Sadly one sad belief isn't enough for lots of people, and so parents and the community bring their children into the lie of religion. If they don't smarten up this time then nothing will break the man-made illusion of some fantastical being that gives a damn (or rather damns you if you don't give).

The unknowing child is told "behave a certain way or you will not receive joyous gifts at christmas like all the other good little boys and girls", and so the child usually behaves. The unknowing adult is told "behave a certain way or you will not receive joyous rapture after you die", and so the adult usually behaves.

The leash is formed and the desperation to keep the illusion alive is well, else all the energy put into prayer and being a good christian / muslim / whatever has been not only in vain but also an embarrassment to their entire life. If god does not exist as I have imagined and been led to believe then I have been made a fool of and allowed myself to be that fool.

Now COME ON how the hell did you people start talking about all this "love" crap??? Seriously!? You are talking about "love" the same way you talk about your God and religion and faith. You have elevated this term to mean something ethereal, as opposed to the very real very tangible entity it is.

Does your mothers love come from some magical place and is rooted in God (or whatever the hell you are trying to prove with such fanciful and convoluted rubbish), or does it come from the chemical reaction she has had from knowing you since the beginning of your existence and from the way her brain is wired to put an importance on you in a manner greater than and different to her favourite McDonalds meal?

Do you think that without what we simplify down to the word "love" does not come from an evolution point? If people didn't love then for what purpose is there to be with someone apart from sex, and then the children resulting from it are nothing but a by-product of the sex-drive and of no actual value etc. Would we not all be wandering around doing our own thing without interest or care of others past what they can give us? Do you think animals "love" ? Does god FORCE THEM to care for their offspring and they do it with spite? Or do you think they form a real bond that causes physical reactions which can be simplified to the word "love"?

Do you think people love their partners because of God? Or do you think people love their partners because they feel (a physical reaction to some stimulus) empathy for someone and want to bring that person joy, and their partner also brings them joy when they are around. Why are bees attracted to pollen? Does Gods love make bees want to go rub against flowers all day? Let's just attribute everything to God (which fan/atic/s do anyway), and not to things that actually make sense.

Just because YOU can't see all the way back into the entire history of everything and watch how the world evolved and the life on it and see why AHA THAT'S why that is the way it is and AHA THAT'S why that over THERE is like THAT, and NOT because some GOD made it that way and made love and rainbows and daisies etc, well it doesn't mean that GOD exists because you can't see past a fantasy.

We "love" because god gives us love through our faith, just like we breathe "air" because god gives us air through our faith... not because it actually really exists in a very real way in this very real world but because our faith in god produces this as a magical by-product. So what the hell do us non-believers breath? This is the type of argument I'm reading here!!!

Seriously, make something else all magical because of God. Please! You can either attribute that which you can not comprehend down to GOD, or you can take a moment and consider that it seems there will always be questions without answers and just because at this time you can't conceive the answer to something yourself doesn't mean someone somewhere hasn't or won't at some point. "I don't understand how the universe works and so I'll put it down to GOD! I don't understand and can't see in my mind how love works so I'll put it down to GOD. I was born with my left foot coming out of my right ear and 3 noses and I don't know why so I'll put it down to GOD".

Because I don't have the answer, the answer is therefore GOD!? (Or is it "the answer is I'm just too dumb to know the answer"?)

Now, just because someone can't understand and see in their own mind why they would sacrifice themselves for another person (or creature, or anything) does not mean that it happens because of God and the love he allows us to experience. Perhaps you are a little sociopathic and simply don't particularly care much for anyone you know. What sort of stupid position to take is that, seriously? I wonder if people who think this way have any pets they care about, and then if I was to start beating on this pet and pull out a knife would the owner (who doesn't understand the concept of self-sacrifice) do anything to protect their pet that they cared about... and to what extent would they try to stop the pet suffering? Would they do anything to stop the attack, to the point of self-sacrifice? Or would they just go "meh, i'm not putting myself in danger... thanks scruffy for keeping my feet warm all those cold nights. See ya."?

So anyways I hear this dude called Jesus apparently was in the God club and was totally his number 1 homie etc, and Jesus was so awesome that he died on a cross for all our sins etc to show us how much love one can have even in an event as horrific as he experienced. He showed us the way.

So anyways I hear this dude called Michael Jackson was totally generous and gave lots of money to charity and created charities of his own, and really cared about kids etc. Apparently people thought he was a whack-job and was a little to touchy touchy with the kids etc and so was persecuted for something that wasn't ever proven. He had both devout fans and devout haters.

I wonder if Michael Jackson isn't Jesus reborn! Both were persecuted and all signs point to it not being the right thing to do, but nevertheless people freaked out and didn't believe in the generosity and love of either.

Anyways... rant over (for now).

[nubcake]

Children have Santa Claus and adults have whatever religion they have. Both are just tools to bend the will and nature of those within to conform to a set of rules they otherwise wouldn't have the reason or sensibility to have on their own.

"I am a good and giving person because God wants me to be". "I will give money to the church because that will show I'm a good and giving person".

Or alternatively... "I will beat my wife if she does not perform ritual X because my god not only allows me to do this but DEMANDS that I do".

Or alternatively... "I will dance around this lizard while slapping my ass-cheek with my left hand so that God will give me rain". "I will sacrifice this goat so that God will keep this village healthy and provide lots of crops this season".

Isn't it interesting how different cultures have their different "Gods". Isn't it also interesting how often it seems their God's laws benefit most the people who are in power? Does the God of middle-eastern people really want the men to do what they want while their women have no say or value, and their God just wants the women to get back in the damn kitchen and make the men some pie!? Isn't it funny how in a dictatorship the religion seems to follow? Isn't it funny how in a democracy the religion seems to follow that too? Isn't it funny how in a place where surviving is the main goal of each day God is something who will hopefully provide relief to the suffering and burden of existence?

Now, I don't dispute that there was a Jesus. I think it's quite possible and maybe even probable that there was (hell, if not many). Like I mentioned above, is Michael Jackson this centuries version of Jesus? The Jesus of 2000 years ago probably did spout dogma about love and giving and so on and so forth... plenty of people over the years have stood up and yelled "follow me and my way" and had people follow. David Koresh ring a bell for example? Hitler? The Pope? Mr Hubbard? Oprah?

Say the right things to the right people and BANG you got yourself a cult! BOOYAH! Reality and truth to what you say need not apply! As long as it sounds good to enough people you are standing tall and their voice will back yours 1000 fold and drown out the voices of reason and reality!

If there was a Jesus there is no way of knowing if he was full of love, or full of scam, or full of clever and manipulation. Perhaps he had the biggest heart in the history of ever, or perhaps he just liked having people follow his every ingrown toenail. Perhaps he even had some of his closest buddies back him up to reinforce what he says... after all every cult needs it's leader, and every cult leader needs his second in command's. Hell maybe he did rise from the grave, or at least appeared to when his buddies went and spread the word and messed with his grave etc etc.

Maybe Jesus was the worlds best magician? David Blaine ain't got nothing on Jesus! David Blaine can hold his breathe underwater for days, but Jesus can WALK ON FREAKING WATER, YO! Chris Angel can make stuff appear before your eyes, but Jesus can turn WATER IN WINE!

2000 years later people are still in the cult talking about this dude they never met or saw or heard or could judge for themselves. Instead they follow the writings of people from a time when ladies would give birth next to barn animals! And to top it off claim they didn't root anyone, it just magically happened! Hell, maybe Jesus was Jesus simply because his mum was a great liar and even convinced Jesus himself that he was some great gift from gods balls, and not some accident from the neighbours balls that one night her man was out somewhere and she decided to go smoke some hay with the nice man next door?

How would you feel being that dude whose wife got preggers from God instead of from you? He gets to be the cuckold because God decides his missus is a nice piece? Could God not have been decent enough to find some nice single girl instead?

What a world!

[phlegm]

If you accept that Jesus is God, He acted pretty religious, but advocated violating many of the religious codes and laws.

Some people think violating the Codes makes Him less religious.

I don't.

Of course not. The profound love of the Kingdom of God lived by Jesus renders authoritarian structures obsolete.

[Peripatet]

The profound love of the Kingdom of God lived by Jesus renders authoritarian structures obsolete.

I wish someone would've told Sister Mary Catherine that back when I was in 3rd grade. That old bat and her wooden ruler were very authoritarian and seemed completely relevant to my well-being.:rolleyes:

Also, does this mean the papacy is now a useless institution? Many regard the papal decrees as very authoritarian. . .

[BillyTheMountain]

I wish someone would've told Sister Mary Catherine that back when I was in 3rd grade. That old bat and her wooden ruler were very authoritarian and seemed completely relevant to my well-being.:rolleyes:

Also, does this mean the papacy is now a useless institution? Many regard the papal decrees as very authoritarian. . .

Threadjack!

[phlegm]

We still struggle with authoritarian structures because God's Kingdom is not yet fully revealed.

Protestants have been done with the Pope's authority for nearly 500 years.

[BillyTheMountain]

We still struggle with authoritarian structures because God's Kingdom is not yet fully revealed.

Protestants have been done with the Pope's authority for nearly 500 years.

and Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists never accepted it.

[Peripatet]

and Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists never accepted it.

. . .Because they had their own Rebbe, Imam, Maharishi, or Lama to maintain order and authoritah.

[BillyTheMountain]

. . .Because they had their own Rebbe, Imam, Maharishi, or Lama to maintain order and authoritah.

about the same way each Protestant sect has a person who maintains order.

[Peripatet]

about the same way each Protestant sect has a person who maintains order.

Somebody's gotta tend the flock of sheeple, less they wander off and discover science.::eek::p

[nubcake]

Somebody's gotta tend the flock of sheeple, less they wander off and discover science.::eek::p

ZING... i think you just won a prize! :)

[BillyTheMountain]

Somebody's gotta tend the flock of sheeple, less they wander off and discover science.::eek::p

What? Are you saying the Church of Reason is anarchy? Leaderless?

Why do all the High Priests of the University put on those robes and flat hats when they get inducted to be leaders, when their indoctrination is complete and they have proven their loyalty, to have No Other Gods Before The God of Science?

[Peripatet]

"BillyTheMountain: bringing you your daily dose of sophistry, since 2004."

love it.

[BillyTheMountain]

Peripatet,

Will you admit you think sex with Christians is really HOT?

BTM

[nubcake]

i swear to god (hehe) i want whatever the hell (weeee) you are smoking!!!

pass it around yo! stop boggarting the fun!

[BillyTheMountain]

ZING... BillyTheMountain, i think you just won a prize! :)

Thanks!

If I had one, I'd give you a medal for bravery here.

[nubcake]

Thanks!

If I had one, I'd give you a medal for bravery here.

I don't recall saying / writing that... must be some good stuff you got because you are surely tripping. Now, God wants you to be a good person and share damnit!

[BillyTheMountain]

http://lawyerasad.blogspot.com/2011/03/100-most-spiritually-influential-living.html?spref=fb_


100 most spiritual people--I did not make the list:(

[feel the light]

You guys are making this way to hard. All higher animals, from snakes on up to humans, have only 2 basic ways to feel about you. Love or hate.

Love is a feeling of fun and safety when in the presence of those you love. It can be measured on a scale of 2 to 10, but only if you can love that much yourself. For instance, I can only clearly measure love up to 5, as I only loved one person that much ever (my little sister). I love everyone at least a 2, until we are fighting. A 3 means we have some fond history together. A 4 is a most trusted friend. They cannot steal from you, as it would make them feel much worse than any joy from $. They will try to protect you, and you them.

Hate also goes from 2 to 10. The more you hate someone, the stronger and better you will feel harming them. 2 is unimportant. Many of my friends hate me at a 2. This usually means that they love money, and "like" their lovers, family, friends and pets. I do not take their hate personally, people that love money hate everyone at a 2, not just me. They are about 1/3 of the population, so you must deal with them. Dogs never love money, so you will never see a dog that hates everyone unless it has been badely abused. It hates out of fear only. So in general, dogs feel more love than people do.

3 hate means you have a bad history with someone, and expect worse. 4 means you want to punch them in their fucking head, or steal from them. 5 means you are OK with killing them, assuming that is not a bad decision for practical reasons. The higher numbers are for fighting more than one animal at a time. Dogs have learned this without language or religion. The truth I speak of predates the evolution of primates by millions of years.

My tip to those who want more love in their life is to learn to fight. Once you are confident you will win the fight, cheerful hate will flow into you, you will have fun protecting those you love. You will not be afraid to love, and those you protect will not be afraid to love you. They will feel the power of your heart and be comforted by your presence. A dog that won't fight in his own yard doesn't deserve one. No heart, no hate, no love. All of life spits on a coward.

Religion seems to try to side step these basic truths about the fragility of life. "Magic all powerful sky friend god", does not need my protection. Thus I cannot love him. Just not feeling it.

[Milosboy]

God (assuming one exists, personally it is my belief that it doesn't exist) is religious in the sense that I am certain that he devotes EVERY SUNDAY to the Green Bay Packers, which is certainly a higher power.

So, yes.

[DhEXED]

Religion is basically Confucius.Jesus was God and fought the whole idea of religion.We today have forgotten what the word religion even means.Its not even funny how backwards we have become with the improper definition of our own language.We would be far better off reading dictionaries over opinions.I judge no man...
Peace,
Dhexed

[Heretical Rants]

Its not even funny how backwards we have become with the improper definition of our own language.
...Except it's not the words that matter, but the ideas that they are trying to convey. Language is flexible and subjective, and arguing semantics is a waste.