paloalto90 on 16/12/2008 at 07:56
Quote:
Simultaneously, I realized that the people around me, some of whom I'd 'ministered' to for 15+ years, were complete jackholes and hadn't been affected one bit in that time by my devotion, the teaching they received, or the supposed 'work of the holy spirit' in their lives - they were the exact same people as they had always been, no more 'conformed into the image of Christ' than my toaster (which I've also had for about fifteen years. Yes, christian=toaster).
Ultimately because of free will you only have complete control to change your own life.Secularly, it is like an individual who hops from therapist to therapist but doesn't want to look at their own behaviour.The teaching are there but there must be a desire to use them.You may think the desire is there, specially in a religious group,but it doesn't insure it.
Regardless of whether you can help others the ultimate goal should be to nurture your own relationship with God if that is what you desire.I honestly don't think that people who eventually come to a belief in God started out with the idea of helping others but it satisfied a need they had within themselves.Anything else is uncontrollable and icing on the cake.
The parable of the seed falling on rocky or fertile soil applies here.
One of the last tests of the Buddha before he went out was their version of the devil who told him that no one will listen to your teachings.
The Buudha said that some will listen.
I'm sure you know that people become familiar with their habit patterns.They become comfortable.They don't like to be uncomfortable.So it takes a pretty good effort to learn about your own psychology and move on from there.And without a desire to know your own psych little can be done.
Gryzemuis on 16/12/2008 at 09:42
Quote Posted by fett
Er...no. You do know that Red isn't spelled 'R-e-d' in Hebrew, right? ;)
If English was good enough for our Lord Jesus, it certainly is good enough for us !
jtr7 on 16/12/2008 at 09:50
:eww: :laff:
RavynousHunter on 16/12/2008 at 10:34
I know of one way to disprove all creationism, and it can be summed up in five letters: G-U-M-M-O. It is, without a doubt, proof that there is no (loving) God. Watch it at your own risk.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gummo) You have been warned.
fett on 16/12/2008 at 13:19
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Ultimately because of free will you only have complete control to change your own life.Secularly, it is like an individual who hops from therapist to therapist but doesn't want to look at their own behaviour.The teaching are there but there must be a desire to use them.You may think the desire is there, specially in a religious group,but it doesn't insure it.
I totally agree - people have to decide to change. My beef is not with people, it's with the holy spirit. The BIG DEAL in the NT is the book of Acts, the idea that since Jesus has permanently interceded with God the father on our behalf, now his spirit can live within us, directing our actions and desires, thereby changing us into the image of Jesus, and make us into who we were originally intended to be before our nature was corrupted by sin. That concept, coupled with the repeated insistence that the Word of god is alive and powerful enough to change people's desires just by ingesting it (irrelevant of church involvement or cultural conditioning) should make for a slew of christians who look very much like Jesus and choose, in their free will, to deny themselves and do the things he did.
The reality is that it simply doesn't happen, and I don't care where you go or how many people you meet who claim that this is the case in their life. I believe if they are 'good' people, they would have been they way regardless of their belief system. It seems to me that people gravitate to 'good' things like religion, or charity, or bad things like crime or Nickelback, based solely on their environment and genetic makeup.
Since I've left the church, I've had dozens of people insist that I can't conclude the above based on my limited, subjective experience. This wasn't a conclusion that I came to overnight, or because someone made me mad, or because of something that happened in one place, at one time. I saw it on multiple levels, in a wide variety of settings, economic situations, cultures, and segments of the church. Believe me, it would be much easier for me to ignore it, take the blue pill, and stay in the Matrix. :) It became something I couldn't ignore over a period of about five years. It had very little to do with the results of my efforts or impact, but rather from observing the lack of change in myself or others around me who claimed to be supernaturally changed because of a relationship with a supreme being. I'm not saying they are/were 'bad' people either, just that they are no different for their belief, and the theology they cling to says they should be radically, noticeably different. When you pile that on top of the pre-destination/free will contradictions, the bizzarity of the trinity concept, and science that repeatedly refutes the first twelve chapters of Genesis (without which, I would argue, you can't believe anything that follows), it's just waaaay too much evidence against it being true.
I also had to stop, take a hard look in the mirror, and ask myself, "Has God every *really* spoken to me, or guided me, either through scripture or the 'conviction' and intuition of the holy spirit...ever?" The resounding answer was NO. I'd been led through life by my gut, my reasoning skills, and my emotions. I'd only framed it in spiritual terms because I wanted so badly to believe, and to continue believing that I was willing to ignore the silence of god for twenty years. As in any relationship, one sided conversations get old, and you either have to conclude that god isn't on speaking terms with you, or he simply isn't there.
Gryzemuis on 16/12/2008 at 14:10
Something I heard recently in a discussion program on Dutch TV.
"God told me <<etc>etc>".
"So how did he speak to you ? In a dream ? Or did you hear a voice ?"
"I heard a voice, very clearly, telling me <<etc>etc>".
"When you hear voices in your head, you should go see a shrink, or get medication !"
:D
D'Juhn Keep on 16/12/2008 at 14:14
Quote Posted by ercles
Dawkins is a complete tool. If you want to actually learn anything you'll have trouble getting past him frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of religion.
He really isn't. Try reading The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker if you want to really understand evolution in all its beauty.
He may have gone all frothy for his later books attacking religion (I haven't read them) but the guy is still awesome for what he's written about evolution.
Gryzemuis on 16/12/2008 at 14:24
To be honest, I am very surprised by this whole discussion. Especially the serious tone.
I'm 44 years old now. I can't remember that I have ever discussed religion with anyone since I was 18 years old. I have never heard anyone discussion religion. I don't know anyone who called themselves religious. I don't know anyone who goes to church. It's just a total non-subject. Especially amongst people below 50 years old.
My family (both sides) was heavily Protestant Reformed. I went to a Christian Church, and later to a Catholic Church. I went to a Catholic high school, where even 5 paters were teaching (Latin, Greek, Dutch and German). I know the bible pretty well, compared to my Catholic friends, and other people my age.
But religion was never an issue. The Catholics already took religion a lot less serious. Some of them went to Church, ignored the preaching, did some singing, and went to drink a beer on Sunday afternoon. I went to a Catholic University (kun.nl) which was later renamed to take the word Catholic out of the name. I worked for 2.5 years at a true Protestant university (vu.nl). Although I am sure that some of my collegues there must have been religious, it was just never discussed. And I'm just the large majority never went to church.
Since the sixties the influence of the church and religion has been diminishing in the Netherlands. We still have our Christian roots, and our values and morals are full of Christian values and morals. But there is no direct influence of the church in day-to-day life. We do have Christian parties in politics, and they are in our current goverment even. But they can't get values pushed into law. (E.g. the Sunday's rest is being removed slowly over the last 20 years, and they can't change that).
We still have Christians in the Netherlands, but they are the minority. The serious ones live in our own little "bible belts". I don't know any of those people. I don't know anyone under 50 who is interested in the church or religion. They might be interested in "spirituality", or zen, or believe "there is something more". But organized church ? With a preacher telling you how to think and act ? Or taking the bible literally ? Nope, that's stuff from the past.
Muslims trying to force their Islamic ways into everyday-life. Now there's a problem. But the Christains have learned that they are irrelevant a long time ago.
Like I said. Young people discussing religion in a serious way. I almost feel like I'm back in the early seventies.
Edit: I just saw that Fett is 37 years old. Not exactly young. But still, surprising to me.
Thirith on 16/12/2008 at 14:59
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
He really isn't. Try reading The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker if you want to really understand evolution in all its beauty.
He may have gone all frothy for his later books attacking religion (I haven't read them) but the guy is still awesome for what he's written about evolution.
Even in
The God Delusion, when he writes about why he's on the side of science and evolution (rather than why anyone who even considers religion anything else than a form of insanity) he's an inspiring writer and gets across the beauty inherent in the world. It's when he goes off on one of his rants about religion and religious people that he gets extremely annoying - I still agree with him about 80% but I simply cannot stand his snide, self-satisfied tone. It's worst when he tries to be funny - he just comes across as a narcissistic speechifier in love with the tone of his voice
All in all, on the basis of
The God Delusion I would say that he's great and inspiring when he's arguing *for* something and a twat when he's arguing against something, to the point where you have to agree with him 100% in order not to want him to shut up.
fett on 16/12/2008 at 15:27
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
To be honest, I am very surprised by this whole discussion. Especially the serious tone.
You would experience serious culture shock in most the U.S. - especially when you leave the east coast. We are inundated with religious belief. Where I live, there is a church at least every 4-8 blocks. People look at you like you're nuts if you tell them you don't go to church. Christian fish symbols on about every 4th car you encounter. It's infused in our court cases, education battles, civil rights issues, and media. I've been to Sweden before and was astonished at how irrelevant religion was, and as a result, how progressive and content the population at large seemed to be (I was only there for a week).
Thirth - that's the thing that puts me off Dawkins as well. He reminds me too much of the creationist zealots when he's like that - very preachy and zealous in tone. I've stayed away from most extreme atheism because I've found that they are just as obsessed with their non-belief as Christians are with their belief.
One of the great things I got back when I left the church was
time. All that time I wasted in study, services, etc. - I now get to spend actually enjoying life and my family (at the time, that's what I thought I was doing - I had no idea...!). I don't regret the time spent doing charitable work or counseling people who just needed someone to listen. I don't regret the relationships I had with many Christians - just the wasted time. When I started to check out some atheist groups, they have all these meetings and rallies and activist leanings that I don't want to get involved with. If I don't believe, why do I care if someone else does? I might get involved if religion is infringing on my personal rights, but I'm not gay, don't own a gun, and don't need an abortion, so really, I could care less what the religious right does in the U.S. so long as they leave me alone.
