Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 8:44:13 GMT -4
Post by Bob B. on Sept 30, 2005 8:44:13 GMT -4
Hasn't anyone noticed that however much we learn or advance in science it never makes any difference in man's behavior? Why would scientific advancement change man's behavior? Unless science starts to alter humans on a genetic level, I see no reason why basic human behavior should change much. We're the same animal regardless of how much we learn. Question. How many of you atheists/agnostics have spent any considerable time actually reading the Bible? I've read very little of the Bible, probably not more than 5%. I admit that I had never read what God had to say during all the time I claimed He didn't exist. This of course assumes the Bible is the word of God, which is very debatable to say the least.
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 8:55:16 GMT -4
Post by colinr on Sept 30, 2005 8:55:16 GMT -4
Put me down in the Athiest camp , never believed - never felt the need to . and i'm increasingly of the opinion that is we could locate the genetic triggers for belief , which I think are there , we should switch them all off ... Ok personal opinion ...no shouting guys!
DH - I'm intrested in the creation of the bible , and indeed the other works of belief that exist Qu'oran, (?) the hindu scriptures etc , but only is so far as what they tell us about man's need to believe in something other than what can be perceived .
On a lighter note - while still on the subject - I once caused 2 nice mormon girls who wre on a recruitment drive to flee the house , after talking to them for at least 2 hours ... almost converted them I Ah happy days !
For those of you out there with simliar views - I'm always heartened by the words of Arthur c Clarke , inthe book 3001, "relegious belief is not in itself proof of mental illness - but it is a major indicator" - please address all comments to Arthur - presently somewhere in Sri Lanka!
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 10:42:16 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 30, 2005 10:42:16 GMT -4
Doesn't Catholicism fit the definition of Christianity? Aren't you and Catholics using the same Gospels? It might fit a wikipeidea definition, but not a biblical one. As to using the same gospels, well they use the Apocrypha too and believe that church tradition and doctrine has equal or more authority than the Bible so I'd have to say that over all, no. But then 99% of organisted christianity is wrong from a purely biblical basis, they have all added in numerous man-made rules and rituals, the very same things Christ preached against. It you are a true follower of Chirst, how can you bind yourself up in the very rituals he fought against? I won't go into the death and destruction both sides have caused either, mainly through the Catholic and Anglican branches. While there are many christians in all branches of the church, for the most part the church has been its own worst enemy fr most of the last 2,000 years and the structures that exist today are worth nothing for getting people to God, they have become a hinderance to it just as the Pharasies and Saducees were in Christ's time. They have become institutions or ritual and nothing else, which is a same because in doing so they are misleading millions of people to what being a real follower of Christ should be.
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 12:41:29 GMT -4
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 30, 2005 12:41:29 GMT -4
I would be interested to know who believes in (a) God and who doesn't. To show good faith, I will put my cards on the table straight away and declare that I am and always have been an atheist. I suppose I am trying to discover who does, and who does not, have blind faith in the unproven. Not all faith is blind, Margamatrix. That's a false assumption. Did you want to do something here besides a head count, or is it okay to start broadening the discussion according to our interests?
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 13:01:17 GMT -4
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 30, 2005 13:01:17 GMT -4
Doesn't Catholicism fit the definition of Christianity? Aren't you and Catholics using the same Gospels? It might fit a wikipeidea definition, but not a biblical one. As to using the same gospels, well they use the Apocrypha too and believe that church tradition and doctrine has equal or more authority than the Bible so I'd have to say that over all, no. But then 99% of organisted christianity is wrong from a purely biblical basis, they have all added in numerous man-made rules and rituals, the very same things Christ preached against. It you are a true follower of Chirst, how can you bind yourself up in the very rituals he fought against? I won't go into the death and destruction both sides have caused either, mainly through the Catholic and Anglican branches. While there are many christians in all branches of the church, for the most part the church has been its own worst enemy fr most of the last 2,000 years and the structures that exist today are worth nothing for getting people to God, they have become a hinderance to it just as the Pharasies and Saducees were in Christ's time. They have become institutions or ritual and nothing else, which is a same because in doing so they are misleading millions of people to what being a real follower of Christ should be. Phantomwolf, I find myself in near perfect agreement with you. Have you read any of Frank Viola's books? (Rethinking the Wineskin, etc.?) As the church continues its prophesied apostasy, more and more believers are entering the "underground" church movement.
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 13:10:33 GMT -4
Post by margamatix on Sept 30, 2005 13:10:33 GMT -4
Did you want to do something here besides a head count, or is it okay to start broadening the discussion according to our interests? Of course it's okay. I was curious to see whether the other folks here were religious, but you didn't have to answer the thread if you didn't want to.
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 14:49:22 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Sept 30, 2005 14:49:22 GMT -4
To show good faith, I will put my cards on the table straight away and declare that I am and always have been an atheist.
Now hold on a minute, margamatix... If you're an atheist, why were you "swear[ing] before Almighty God" to this or that on the Apollo conspiracy threads? Why were you making a big deal about who would swear on a Bible and who wouldn't?
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 16:04:38 GMT -4
Post by margamatix on Sept 30, 2005 16:04:38 GMT -4
To a god-fearing person, this would be a grave oath to make. You are correct in stating that to an atheist,such an oath would be lacking in such gravity, which is why I immediately followed it with an oath sworn on my children's eyes.
I understand that all of the Apollo astronauts have, at some stage, declared their belief in God.
However, this thread is not about Apollo, and discussion of Apollo on this thread is irrelevant. I wonder if you could restrict your comments to those relevant to the subject- thank you.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 16:18:55 GMT -4
Post by Bob B. on Sept 30, 2005 16:18:55 GMT -4
However, this thread is not about Apollo, and discussion of Apollo on this thread is irrelevant. I wonder if you could restrict your comments to those relevant to the subject- thank you. With all due respect, sts60's question was not about Apollo. The question was directly related to your belief, or lack thereof, in God. I therefore think this is an appropriate thread to develop that discussion.
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 16:24:48 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Sept 30, 2005 16:24:48 GMT -4
I will be happy to restrict my comments to those relevant to this thread:
Why did you, an avowed atheist, swear your belief on something "before Almighty God"?
And why do you care whether anybody else swears something on the Bible or not?
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 16:28:15 GMT -4
Post by margamatix on Sept 30, 2005 16:28:15 GMT -4
Why did you, an avowed atheist, swear your belief on something "before Almighty God"? Because I was challenged to.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 16:38:58 GMT -4
Post by Bob B. on Sept 30, 2005 16:38:58 GMT -4
Because I was challenged to. No you were not. People were complaining that you weren't reading and/or replying to their posts so you responded with: I read every message posted on this forum. I swear before almighty God that I read every message posted on this forum. Please do not be hurt and upset if yours was one of the messages I did not have the time to reply to. From This thread.
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 17:48:45 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Sept 30, 2005 17:48:45 GMT -4
To be fair, I also posed such a hypothetical question to margamatix here as part of pointing out how ludicrous it was to insinuate that there was something suspicious about someone refusing to swear on a Bible after they had been lied to, physically cornered, and called "liar" and "coward" by someone seeking publicity for a commercial production. I didn't actually ask him to swear; my question was rhetorical. But he did swear on the Bible, although he is an atheist. I find that curious, which is why I asked my questions on this thread in the first place.
|
|
|
God
Sept 30, 2005 23:00:58 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 30, 2005 23:00:58 GMT -4
Phantomwolf, I find myself in near perfect agreement with you. Have you read any of Frank Viola's books? (Rethinking the Wineskin, etc.?) As the church continues its prophesied apostasy, more and more believers are entering the "underground" church movement. No I haven't, but then nor do I believe that there is need for an "underground" movement. There are a number of churches out there that are getting things "righter" for want of a better word. By casting off the rituals and rules that men have been impossing since about 200 AD and getting back to the teachings of the Apostles, then we are closer to what was intended. I work on a princple that if a church has things not taught in the NT, then it has incorrect teachings. The leaderships structure in the NT is simple. All believers are Saints and Priests. They have Teachers, Pastors (literally shepards) and Elders to guide them. This is scriptural, and each of them has to have certain qualifications for the position. Meeting together in a church is for the edifiction, teaching and spiritual growth of the followers, not because it feels good to go, looks good for business, there are cute girls/boys, your parents made you go, it's what you've always done and so the church can pass the plate. Insense, bowing to statues, getting splashed by water as a baby, crossing oneself, saying the rosary and fawning over the bones of "saints" are totally against biblical principles and are totally pagan. It's also not up to the church to be PC, or to live the way the world wants them too. One of the things that really ticks me off is non-christians getting involved in the gay debate. The reason for this is that they are trying to push their morallity onto a group that follow something they don't even believe in. I'm don't force my beliefs on you, why should you force yours on me? It seems that today, too many of the "mainstream" churches are too busy trying to get bums on seats and not enough time dealing with real christianity that they are willing to be anything and do anything to get people through the doors. To me that is not only a compromise of belief, but it is disrespect and an arrogance against God. What right do people have to tell God that he's old fashioned and has to get with the times? How can supposed believers tell their God what to do? But as I say, there are churches out there that are getting things closer to the mark than most, but even so all have faults because they are run by men and men make mistakes. In the end the best policy is to find one that has a good biblical understanding, a solid bibical basis, and a very heathly dose of humility and compassion for people. Where I live I'm lucky to have a choice of three of four of them.
|
|
|
God
Oct 1, 2005 2:08:28 GMT -4
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Oct 1, 2005 2:08:28 GMT -4
I don't know where you live, Phantomwolf, but it sounds pretty good. I wish I could find something like that here. When I said underground I meant the home church movement--Christians who want to be active instead of passive and/or who are fleeing apostate churches. I came across this one chapter from Viola's book on Lambert Dolphin's website. I was so excited by it that I bought the book and then the other two. Viola's main complaint is clergy-led gatherings and I agree wholeheartedly. To me, the beauty of a leaderless group is that every member of the body participates and it's a whole lot harder to corrupt a group of equals. Here's the chapter. Let me state that I'm not trying to persuade you to this point of view. I would, however, appreciate your taking time to read the chapter and comment on it. Most Christians I talk to about this are horrified at the idea of having worship services led solely by the Holy Spirit. www.ldolphin.org/viola.htmlHere's the link to Viola's website. I particularly enjoyed reading about his mission to the saints in Chile. It's under Articles, second from the bottom, if you care to read it. www.ptmin.org/articles.htm
|
|