Loyalty and religion

Post Reply New Topic

No, I've never suggested or implied anything of the sort. I am curious why and how you have come to such a hostile position about God and anyone who follows a religion, and where you feel you are in your journey of deciding what your personal beliefs are and will be.

I do not consider the Bible a perfect book because it involves the hand of man. I do not know if God is or is not perfect and prefer not to venture to guess.

Nor have I called you anything despite your explanation in the other thread - that is quite a stretch, and an inappropriate one.

Not only flawed, but in some respects, incompetent. Have you ever studied the design of the lower portion of the human spine?

ruveyn

I'd add to the OP - we're all too different to fit under one mold, especially when 'organized' culture heaps it under so many arbitrary rules of appearance and personality type that those tend to excel in salience above and beyond the 10 bottom line rules. I think growing up outcast, being a theist at the time but not fitting in whatsoever, sent me on a different path because a) I needed answers for my own identity and what to do with it that I could not find and b) to conform to that level was the physically impossible - knowing that I wasn't a bad person in the later sense really forced me to reexamine the framework of what this world is and what it's about. For a while I started thinking the bible was just an elegant book of suggestion in terms of ways to take evolutionary psychology and sublime it for better civic use as 'humanity'; even there though I think it has a lot of fallbacks, mainly that it had to rephrase certain truths on uversteered terms and ultimately the authoritative BS ceases the meaning the creates too many negative side effects. That said though, while I can't rule out that Jesus was who he said he was, there's just a lot in there that seems like its at odds with too many angles of his own creation.

I think in that sense though I'm like a lot of agnostics or spiritual but not religious - as in I would like to posit all light, all beauty, all truth, and all goodness in one place and hold these things up for the reverence that I believe that they diserve, just that the Gods of most religions, at least in their dealings from the perspectives of the supposed authoritative holy books, really seem to fall short. At least with Gnosticism creation is posited to the Logos and in Islam its rebelling angels, but still for a God to be God I have a hard time with any text that believes such a being (which I think by nature would have to be omniscient/omnipotent) could create the forces of evil and say 'oops, I didn't know that would happen' - therefore any theodicy that brings in hell to the unbeliever or even those doing the worst in the world I really have to question. Some people find a way to posit themselves as full theists/atheists and intellectually be at peace with it - I still haven't found that golden nugget yet though.

Therefore god's influence isn't good enough to overcome the influence of man.

Therefore man is greater than god.

Therefore you believe you are greater than god and cannot be a christian.

Addition:
Careful saying atheism is against religion, I find that very offensive.

ATheism is just having no belief in gods, there a plenty of religions under atheism.

What was it you said... an umbrella?

The atheists religion umbrella is the no belief in god, theists is a belief in god.

Abrahamic umbrella is the evangelion.

Last edited by TheOddGoat on 30 Dec 2009, 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Good, for it is but fool's gold.

No, if I understood DW_a_mom's comments correctly, she was endorsing a fairly similar view to what I hold: that God's message was sent through human messengers, and the messengers, being flawed humans, were never quite able to get it completely right. I don't see how this implies a failing on God's part, or how it implies that man's influence is stronger than God's.

But you must admit that when a man claims he speaks with God's direct instruction it is most difficult not to have very strong doubts as to the validity of the source.

Thanks. Better than I was saying it.

To TheOldGoat - something else you are not realizing, and that I have posted before, is that my faith is based on a strong belief that God is real, but all the window dressing that is my religion - I'm not as sure. I accept it because that is the faith family I was born into, and I believe that God wants us to be true to our faith families, but it's much like being given only the trunk of the elephant from which to describe the entire elephant, and the picture that emerges is, of course, imperfect. I am far from a literal Christian, and make no pretense of knowing that one path is better than another when it comes to different types of faith. There are many ways of finding God and living the life He would wish for each unique person. The paths can be different, the goals can be different, the lives can be different. I make no pretense at knowing the purpose of each thread in what is a giant tapestry, or knowing which threads are the closest to the truth. You want to make these giant leaps that since A leads to B and B leads to C, and so on so that A must be Z, but it doesn't work that way.

As in the source being the man? I don't trust men who make such claims; it tends to be too self-serving for them.

And yet when it is written in an old book it seems acceptable to you. I am merely expressing my opinion that there is little difference in my eyes. If you are offended by my doubts I consider that a personal problem you have to deal with and should be no concern of mine.

The thing that bothers me the most with certain types of religious people is how pushy they are with it. And they generally won't take no for an answer. Everyone has a right to believe their own way. But some people think theirs is the only right way and that's what I have a problem with. I don't prefer the term God mostly because of what religion has made it but that doesn't mean I don't believe in a certain power, mystery, energy that does appear to exist. I prefer to not presume that I know anything and simply pay attention and experience those unique moments when synchronicity occurs or when I experience favor and know that my "almighty" is with me, caring for me, helping me, watching over me. I have faith and I don't need religious dogma enshrouding its real essence. I don't like pushy religious people who think they know everything because they really don't. They are just pushing their mentality and beliefs on another and I don't feel that it is right. We all come to these things on our own and don't need to be pushed, pulled or forced that way by anyone.

If you ask me, loyalty is the main problem with religion. Religion does not tolerate the changing of views, and that is what learning is, the changing of views. I don't deal well with a system of thought that does not condone such a basic human principle as learning.

Where did she say that?


Where did she say that?


Who said that?


Didn't she specifically say the bible isn't perfect?

You all seem to be talking past one another. Shouldn't you at least determine that you're all using the same definition of God before discussing it?

I have neither a definition for God nor a clue as to what is or is not assumed acceptable in the Bible.

The bible is part of christianity, the bible says that. Therefore supporting christianity is supporting that statement whether you agree with it or not.

DW a mom said that in another thread but I was reminded of it here.

"As in the source being the man? I don't trust men who make such claims; it tends to be too self-serving for them."

Man invented the idea of god.

If god's influence does not produce perfection, his influence could be better. Therefore it is not perfect. Therefore an aspect of god is not perfect. Therefore god is not perfect.