Belief Of Religon

[LadyGaladriel]

Just a curious question that came to mind a moment ago.
Say that the human Race evolved so much that Humanity discovered that there was absoutly no chance of a God or next Life (I know we cant discovers this but it Hypothetical) Lets say that all that happens when you die is just that. You die. You don't reincarnate , there isn't a God/allah/budda/anyGod.

Do you think that this would stop people believing in it even if they know without a doubt that there was any such thing as Religon.


Do you think that this would lead to an increase in Crime ect?

p.s

1)This is a total Hypotetical Question. no offence to any religous person at all. This is basically a thread to see about how Scienitifical methods and Religous Beliefs compare. So basically if you find offence at this thread then feel free to Pm me then I will ask a mod to delete it.
2) I put this in GOP because I thought that GOP also deals with moralistic aspect of Life too. If I have put this in a worng place then please Mod feel free to Move it (for this reason I have left off The GOP in the subject title)

[TheFool]

Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
Say that the human Race evolved so much that Humanity discovered that there was absoutly no chance of a God or next Life

"3001: Final Odyssey" by Arthur C Clarke has something like this in it, can't remember the details of it though (just mentioning it :) )



Do you think that this would stop people believing in it even if they know without a doubt that there was any such thing as Religon.

People would still want to live by the morals/teachings etc set out in different religious codes, I think...

But maybe we could evolve to be immortal (perhaps elf-style immortality :) ) then no-one would really need to know about dying?

[HLGStrider]

This assumes we're evolving at all... I personally don't believe in it, and there was an evolutionist in I think Brittian who says we've reached are peek...

However, I think that society shows degression as much as regression and being physically or mentally greater doesn't effect your spirituality. C.S. Lewis was a highly intelligent man and was a Christian. Having a bigger brain didn't convince him otherwise. Einstein believed in a "god"... which I know not, but he mentioned him. Etc. So, no it wouldn't happen.

I think that it's too much a part of us. Humans are spiritual as well as material creatures. If you deny this you deny a part of us and you make us less whole... so it would increase suicides, collectivism, and yes, probably crime.

[Celebthôl]

This assumes we're evolving at all... I personally don't believe in it, and there was an evolutionist in I think Brittian who says we've reached are peek...
i agree with this HLG coz in nature the ppl/animals with good mutation survive and the weaker ones die so the good mutation carries on and sperads quickly, but in our society all ppl live and get a fair chance continue their line (DNA line)

also i believe that there would be less crime coz many ppl disregard god anyway saying he'll forgive me and stuff so they commit crimes anyway but i believe that religeous crimes in like israil (sp) will all stop coz well why should they carry on?

Celeb

[Wolfshead]

I believe that religion is slowly beginning to be pushed out of our lives by society. Fewer and fewer of us believe in God and such like and this number will get larger and larger until hardly anyone will think of God at all. I think when this happens we will continue to live by the codes set out in certain religions, roughly, as we do now. I mean, we know killing and stealing are bad things, but less major things like adultery and coveting your neighbours ass will go on. Kinda like it does now.

I don't believe in God or any kind of after-life. It's a nice idea and it would be great if it was true, but to me it seems too far fetched, so I think when we die, we're gone for good. I don't criticise people for their beliefs, you're entitled to think what you like, but I don't believe.

I take part in things that are tradition which refer to God, and are only there because of religion, but the whole God and Jesus thing refers to something else for me. I don't honestly know what, but they are important to me, but not religion-wise.

But I think here I am going off on a tangent and not quite staying on topic. So I think that we won't prove God exists or not, but God will remain as some kind of symbol, but people will think of his existance as fiction.

Another interesting thing here is there may well be less wars. I mean, you've got all this Jihad thing, all about God, really. And think of the terrible wars in the past that have happened in the name of religion? Probably, without religion, people would have found something else to fight about, but it's an interesting idea.

[TheFool]

Personally I don't believe by any means that 'we' have reached 'the peak of human evolution'.... we haven't even landed on Mars yet! Even if 'humans have ceased to evolve the way other animals do', the benefits of science, technology and medicine make this totally negligible eg prolonged life-span (at least for more affluent nations :( )

Seriously, I am very skeptical as to whether the question "what happens when we die?" will/can ever be answered. And maybe if human life-span reached say 200 years, people would become more fascinated with this question...?

Celeb to the best of my knowledge the current Israeli/Palestinian/Middle East conflict is not so much about religion as about land rights, due to the creation of the State of Israel. Everyone needs somewhere to live

btw I am not religious. I am teetering between atheist and agnostic, but then again I haven't finished my philosophy book yet :D

[HLGStrider]

Religion wars normally are caused by preversions of religion, not religion itself, so I don't think getting rid of it would solve anything war wise. Religion is commonly used as an excuse.

Society does tend to bridge out religion, however, Voltaire predicted that Christianity would be dead in under a hundred years... fifty years later his abandoned printing press was being used to print Bibles. It doesn't die that easy.

[Ciryaher]

I don't think that humanity would ever entirely abandon religion. It's hard to imagine society without some purpose or direction (whether or not it is correct) and religion seems to be the greatest source of this purpose/direction. No matter what "evidence" someone could bring forth, the only thing that is guaranteed about human behaviour is that a great many people will *not* take it as proof. This has proven to be true, such as the fact that there are people out there that still think O.J. Simpson is innocent ;)

And by the way...Buddha was a man (Siddhartha Gautama), and not a god.

[HLGStrider]

Jesus was also a man, Cir, he just was also a God and claimed to be one... I don't believe Budha ever made a direct statement of Diety.

[Ciryaher]

Siddhartha Gautama was a Hindu prince that renounced the caste system and taught a philosophy of pacifism and simplicity, having changed his name to Buddha. There are no deities in Buddhism.

And I don't believe that Jesus was God, and that he wasn't a god, either.

[HLGStrider]

Than what's the point to being a Christian?

The idea is that God exists in three parts as one (My mom used the egg as an example... yolk, white, shell=egg... Father, Son, Holy Ghost=God) and using a divine form of conception the Father part placed the Son part in a woman. That part became a human being who was also God, a paradox when you think in human terms, but in the eternal and perfect totally real and believeable. Jesus did claim to be God (or the Son of God which is generally the same thing... Cow's sons are cows. Dogs sons are dogs. Men's sons are men, and God's sons are Gods.).

So if Jesus was just a man he was a big liar and Christianity is a farce.

[Wolfshead]

I'm not gonna try arguing on the whole Christianity thing, I'll be way over my head :)
Originally posted by HLGStrider
Cow's sons are cows.
But I'm going to have to be pedantic here, I can't resist it, Cows sons are not cows. To start off with they're a calf and them become bulls ;) Cows daughters would be cows :D

[HLGStrider]

I happen to own a few cows and a bull, so I know what I'm talking about... However, if I said Bull people might think I was implying the other meaning and I was trying to be civil... I should've used a different example, but it is getting late... Elgee should go to bed.

[Wolfshead]

Oh well, not to worry, I was being a bit too pedantic for my own good, perhaps :) I think everyone else, though will know what you mean.

[HLGStrider]

I wasn't too concerned...

[Húrin Thalion]

Just a few details to sort out as I saw. Religion is my personal favourite though I am not baptized or member of any church.
Jesus did not claim to be God or his son. By the time when Messias was first mentioned as son of God in jewish songs the jews were so used to monotheism that their expression son was meant to express his closeness to God. The discussion if Jesus was divine is particularly interesting because of the Arianic schism. I personally think that Jesus was not the Logos (the greek word for powers) (God) incarnated. The most interesting part is the differnece beetween ortodox and catholic christians and that'd be interesting to discuss.

About the topic I'd say that people would start believing in something else though not something proved or possible to prove.

Elen

P.S I'm back now and I'll write that communism thing tomorrow.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Jesus did not claim to be God or his son. By the time when Messias was first mentioned as son of God in jewish songs the jews were so used to monotheism that their expression son was meant to express his closeness to God..... I personally think that Jesus was not the Logos (the greek word for powers) (God) incarnated.


John 1:1-4

In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men.

What exactly was Christ, if not God in the flesh? Jesus, the Son (incarnation) of God claimed to forgive sins, he healed the sick and raised the dead on his own power, he claimed equality with God, he claimed to be the door to eternal life. None of these things were done by any prophet of Yahweh in the past. The reason why the Jews were so incensed about Christ and called him a "blasphemer" was because of his claims that were alien to a monotheistic religion. He also abolished much of the old sanctuary services by his death. He resurrected and claims to be coming again to receive his people....

As CS Lewis claims, either he is the son of God or he was a liar or a lunatic....You can't take it half way.

[Húrin Thalion]

If you read Arius's letters you'll see that his opinion is really that he was another human being but closer to God. Arius said that he was borne as human and filled with the divine spirit. For this he had evidence in the Bible and other holy writings. His opponent Athanasius (who was vanquished from Rome FIVE times) said that he was of Logos and to return to Logos which is, though he did not know it, close to Hinduism.

E.C

[Ciryaher]

I'm not saying that he was just a man, HLG. I'm saying that I blieve he was a separate but defined extension of the essence that is the Almighty. What form God takes is not important. He may be more of a presence in both this world of tangibility and the world of the intangible, than he is a visible being. Anything can be interpreted any way you want to interpret it. The basis of Christianity is not the details of what is obvious or told, it is the belief in the axioms. Through Christ, one can achieve salvation, that is what the New Testament and Jesus of Nazareth say. Whether Christ is God Himself, or a part of God, or a separate being altogether (but not omnipotent, of course) doesn't matter, it is what he stands for that matters.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
If you read Arius's letters you'll see that his opinion is really that he was another human being but closer to God. Arius said that he was borne as human and filled with the divine spirit. For this he had evidence in the Bible and other holy writings

And where exactly was Arius' scriptural basis? Arianism was condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. where the belief in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were confirmed from scriptures by ALL Christendom including the five patriarchal cities (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria)...Was all Christendom wrong and Arius right?

[HLGStrider]

Personally I'd trust Jesus' own words over any philosopher and He did make a lot of statements either implying or directly stating diety.

Axioms means truths that don't need proving because they are so obviously truth (duh type things, I suppose). For instance, Cir?

If Jesus was not a deity He was a pretty presumptious human. He was going around forgiving people... and not forgiving them for sins commited against Him.

Let's say someone steps on your foot. You say "I forgive you." That make sense. Now lets say someone steps on your foot and while you are still angry your friend walks up to the offender, taps them on the shoulder, and says "I forgive you." Umm... excuse me? Whose foot was that? Only God can forgive sins against others.

Also Jesus referred to God in terms of familiarity the Jews DID find blasphomous (most notably Abba as father... I believe. I read that awhile ago).

Anything can be interpreted any way you want to interpret it.

I can interpret the word "Adios" to mean hello if I want to. It isn't going to stop it from meaning Good-bye.

[Húrin Thalion]

Jesus said to his friends (I don't know what they're called in English, Petrus and Judas and so on) when they expressed his divine nature and powers that he alone possesed: "It is not only gifted to me to heal diseases etc. if your belief was as big as a corn of mustard you could move that mountain in a moment." According to Karen Armstrong, author of A history of God Athanasius got supporters in Nicaea through less honorable methods, partly because he wwas supported by Constanine.

E.C

[Eledhwen]

You can read the Bible beginning to end and not believe. It's only by the Holy Spirit living in you that you can really know the truth, so it is pointless arguing with anyone who is not really seeking but only wants to reinforce their own corner. The best way to find out is to ask Him (the Almighty). If He's real and wants you to know him, won't He answer you if you are asking with a sincere heart? Just say "God, Jesus, if you're real, make yourself known to me."

WARNING! If you do ask, and He makes himself known, then the ball's in your court. Do you accept his invitation to take up your cross and follow Him, or do you reject him and risk the consequences? Don't ask unless you really want to know.

[Húrin Thalion]

On this I will not argue because there is nothing more to say. What makes it right is that you believe it and that is enough. I will not ask God out of respect (for christianity) and for your wise warning.

Though I believe you can find God without Him personally revealing Himself unto you

Elen

[Ciryaher]

Can't you forgive someone through God? Jesus, being the 'son of God' could forgive, because he had God's 'backing'.

The axioms of Christianity? Well I'd hope you knew them, but here they are as I see them: admittance of sin, repentance, forgiveness, kindness, and belief in Jesus being your Saviour. Those are (in my opinion) the ideas that are Christianity. Some people would add pacifism, but there are several passages in which Jesus refers to his people not as sheep, but as soldiers.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

"It is not only gifted to me to heal diseases etc. if your belief was as big as a corn of mustard you could move that mountain in a moment."
Interesting, Elen. That reminds me of a Lady I met once who had almost transcended religion. She was Seventh Day Adventist and had been excommunicated by her own church because she was TOO radically insistant on certain precepts. That is she believed TOO seriously in being a vegetarian, when the rest believed it as a precept of their religion, but they didn't like her insistance on them all following it to the letter and wanted to take it loosely. But she saw why God would have given such a precept, because she could also understand it intellectually. When I left her, she said to me that prayer only works IF you ask something in prayer and EXPECT TO GET IT. To her, it was a form of faith in youself and positive self talk.
And I believe Einstein's belief in God, came from his understanding nature and physical laws so thoroughly, that he was close to seeing and understanding, the perfect knowledge of God himself. He could forsee an obvious confluence of science and religion (I should say spiritualism) into a point when they are both one and the same. Many people who cannot take Christianity literally, can still see God in everything around them -- in Nature, in Beauty, in Love, in the Sublime, in Marriage, in Kindness and Compassion, in Profundity, in Chaos, in Geology, in Evolution, in an Old Growth Forest, in Life, in the Universe -- and can only be awestruck by it all! We (agnostics?) think of the Bible as an archaic and anachronistic kindergartener's guide to right living, kind of like "See Spot Run" or "My First Reader" in the greater scheme of Universal Truth.
(Sorry if I offend anybody.)

[HLGStrider]

Well, if you want to oversimplify...

The Bible is incredibly hard to believe, follow, and in someways understand. There are basic parts of it that are simple. Other parts are complex and hard for me to understand. That's because it is made up of both "meat and milk."

Most people, to paraphrase Lewis, critisize Christianity by putting up the version they teach children before you, then when you explain the real thing they accuse you of over complicating.

I was questioning the Axioms, thing, because I wanted to know if you meant principles (such as love your neighbor) or facts (such as whether or not Jesus rose from the dead). One can say they follow Christ by following his "axioms" or the good things He taught. However, one that person doesn't have to necessarily believe him to be anything more than a philosopher with a few good ideas. I wanted to see what you believed.

Anyway, back on subject.

I don't think the basic moral principles would survive without religion because they are having enough trouble surviving with it.

Let's take some basic morals from Judaism and Christianity (I haven't studied other religions enough to list ones from them, but I'm sure they exist... especially in the Muslim faith which I believe has a lot of rules). Some of them are now claimed to be obsolete.
Kids do not honor their fathers and mothers anymore.
Premarital sex is rampant.


In general we have a fairly watered down form of morality. If even with people still professing religion these things are ending, when religion is gone they won't stick around. They'll be held to be relative and will change with political regimes.

Some will stay in form of laws (ie the ones against murder and stealing... though the one against murder will be limited to not include the killing of sick or old people after awhile. It has already been limited not to include the unborn.), but other than that they will die or only be held by a few who study the old days and find something attractive in them... which won't be many.

[Ciryaher]

If Life, the Universe, and Everything is so complex, I really don't think that any book can shed a large amount of light on the scheme of things. The Bible is exactly what you called it. It is a foundation...a beginning on which to build and develop your ideas. No book of wisdom should be taken as it is. The Transcendentalists believed that one should determine truth by one's own reason, and not just one's sensoral perceptions.

Whether your source of wisdom is the Communist Manifesto, Wealth of Nations, Torah, Q'ran, Origin of Species, Holy Bible, or the Upanishads, (or some combination thereof) you must interpret what you read and reason what is true.

[HLGStrider]

I'm not one.
I believe there is a logical patern to the universe, to life, and to morality all derived from God. I believe the Bible is true and infallible, though you need to know where Grace kicks in and so there isn't any more adultress stoning going on.
Truth is derived from God and while we could never grasp the whole thing, we will someday have it revealed to us (after death). The best thing to do is to hold on to the truths he provided for us in the Bible... which can be interpretted correctly if you approach it really reading and not skipping every other word or cut and pasting bits.

[Eledhwen]

The axioms of Christianity? Well I'd hope you knew them, but here they are as I see them: admittance of sin, repentance, forgiveness, kindness, and belief in Jesus being your Saviour.You said it! Christians aren't perfect, they're just saved. We were all guilty as hell (literally!) until we finally ditched our pride and accepted the free gift he offers (you know: forgiveness, peace, love, eternal life, that sort of stuff). We still sin, - daily! But we know what to do about it - take it to the cross where Jesus has already dealt with it and won. When we do this, we can change, and not before.

[Eriol]

Well, regarding the hypothetical opening question of the thread, I think it can only be answered by agnostics/atheists. For people who believe in God, it is uncomprehensible. It is like asking "What would happen if we discovered that 1+1=5?"

Now, if you could prove to me that 1+1=5, then I think I would abandon math and try to live without it. Logical proof is unbeatable. I don't think it will be easy though ;) . Same with religion.

About the effects of religion on history: I think most views on this thread are a bit "cronocentric", i.e., they assume that our present time is more enlightened than those before it. Now, while we know a lot of stuff nobody ever knew in the history of mankind, we have forgotten quite a lot also. And there is no reason to assume that what we ignore now is the unimportant stuff. Maybe it is the really important stuff -- we never know until we learn both.

I know that I have to study a lot before saying anything definitive about the value of 'religions' (even disregarding the main question, what, if any, is the TRUE religion) in history. Really, we are asking about the side effects of a given medicine, instead of focusing on whether it cures the disease. (Or whether there is a disease after all!)

[HLGStrider]

Some very good points Eriol, though I believe for a person who is theistic the question could be debated as "What would happen if everyone stopped believing in God?" which is a possibility.

[Eledhwen]

I can't stop believing in someone who has proved to me that they exist time and time again, and whose presence I am always aware of, and who is, most definitely, for me and not against me.

By the way, HGL of the 2K+ posts, do you have a life outside of TTF?

[HLGStrider]

Humph... big shot with small post count making fun of my lack of life...

Well, if you don't count college, writing a homeschool news letter for about twenty subscribers, writing, doing beaded jewelry for the occasional craft fare, writing whatever I feel like, painting sometimes, playing first clarinet in the homeschool band, owning a cat, having a crush on this really cute guy, inventing my own langauge, listening to Steven Curtis Chapman music, reading Ideas On Liberty, controling my 16 year old brother, babysitting my 1 year old sister, defending my room to my clean freak sister (15), etc...

No, I don't.

Anyway, I have a fast WPM and I'm not afraid to use it.
I also normally run the forum up on two windows so that I can answer all my threads in less than an hour and look to see if there is anything else of interest to do.

[Eledhwen]

I guess you don't watch many TV soaps! I have a fast WPM too, but I write outside of forums - I want to sneak my faith in by the back door through my writing, the way Tolkien did, and also CS Lewis in his childrens writings. I've not been doing it for long, raising kids for most of my life (all my own!).

I hope I didn't offend you - I couldn't resist a dig when I saw your new ranks is 'persistent poster' and your post count is nearing 3000. You're an excellent communicator, and I humbly lay my miserable post count at your footstool, O great one.

Seriously, and getting back to the subject of the thread, I can see from your posts here that you have your feet on the right ground, and "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Rom 8:28)

So, you have a clean freak sister, do you? My sympathies, but I suppose Romans 8:28 even applies to that!

[Dengen-Goroth]

This is a very interesting discussion. I'll just go about in no clear order, much as I usually do:) Religion, in my perception, was in the past a way to instill laws which would be enforced by man and "god(s)". It was obviously used for political ends, i.e. rulers proclaiming themselves sons of god, gods, etc. It was also a way to explain that which was around those who lived then. Over time it was more an extension of man's innate instinct of greed. Many religious leaders employed to amass wealth, and when orders were set up preaching that the church should reject wealth, conflict erupted. It was an excuse for the slaughter of thousands, for debauched acts and crimes so astoundingly abominable that they have etched into history a perennial wound. And then came the rebirth of science, reason, logic, etc. Much of what required explanations has been explained through the aforementioned concepts, in many cases completely contradicting religious scriptures. One reason, again in my perception, why many disbelieve in the concept of god is because science offers logical responses as well as evidence, while religion is based on faith. Many times we require proof in order to believe. Some do not see (find, whichever you prefer) this proof. And others simply point out obvious contradictions. I will state here one from one religious scripture, the Bible.
“The price of wisdom is above rubies.” Job, 28:18
“He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” Ecclesiastes, 1:18
Proof of being seems something that many desire to believe in god. Questions such as, “What is god”, “Where is god”, “How did god come to be”, etc. are just some of which I have heard myself. Though, of course, it’s always easy to simply say:
“Shall the clay say to him who fashioneth it, What makest thou?” Isaiah, 45:9

[HLGStrider]

Those verses aren't contradictory. Knowledge and wisdom are two different thing. Knowledge is primarily information. Wisdom is the ability to take information and learn from it.
Knowledge is undeniably painful... for instance, I would be a happier person if I didn't know about child abuse, rape, murder, or September 11th. Wouldn't we all be? When we were kids, unless we faced these things early on, we were "blissfully ignorant."
Wisdom is the ability to gain understanding from knowledge. To take all the bad things and good things and learn from them.
Knowledge isn't a bad thing, but it can be painful to assimulate.

Conclusion, that isn't a contradiction, try again.

As I've said before violence normally results from a perversion of religion. I don't believe there was anything Biblical to the Crusades. Especially considering thou shalt not kill... though the Bible does use two different words for kill, one referring to murder and another which refers to what a soldier does in battle or in self defense.

Also if morals were invented by rulers they would vary more. Throughout the history of man the moral codes have been similar. So, we can have two conclusions.
1. Moral codes are inborn and people who disobey moral codes are preverting their real nature.
2. Moral codes exist from something above and beyond us and people have become in tune to them, accepting them past their nature.

Or you could do a combination.

I personally believe mostly the second but I believe that God put things in us that can tell right from wrong as part of our nature.

You are misinterpeting that verse, DG. That verse refers to not complaining to God about how He made us, not to not asking questions about God.
IE it means don't scream at God and hate God for making you fat or ugly or incapable of doing math. He made you that way because he wants you that way and that is the way he loves you. He made you to handle what he'll put before us... I believe there is another place that says he will not give you more than you can bear.

God is open to questions and to answer your three:
God is the Father and Creator. He is the greatest personality and all good things come from him.
God is everywhere, and His son dwells within the hearts of believers.
God has always existed and will always exist (Was and is and is to come). Think of a circle or that infamous mathematical line that goes on forever.

[Eriol]

I find it amusing when people frame this subject in terms of "Reason vs. Faith". It is as if religious people were defective in this most human of characteristics (Reason), or simply chose not to follow their reason, consciously. I never met ANY people who did that, religious or not. I think only lunatics try to fight with a clear syllogism. Usually the cause of the difference in opinions is a difference in the premises. (Though special interests sometimes play a part too.). Instead of dismissing religious people as illogical beings (a creature we have never met -- even spoiled women are logical!), skeptics would do well to study the matter before making such claims.

That said, I must do something I usually refrain from doing in forums -- I must give my credentials. I am a scientist, a biologist actually, trained in the scientific method. I believe in Evolution (I see some friction with my allies in the religious camp after saying that :( ).

And I also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

[HLGStrider]

While I don't agree about Evolution, I don't see this as the place to debate this.

I personally believe religion to be a highly logical choice. I'm a big fan of C.S. Lewis. I use his arguments a heck of a lot. If God exists and God is omnipresent He is entwined with every good subject, and everything that is good he created... God created a logical universe and so logic is of God... people sometimes go a step further and state that logic is god or man, who possesses logic, is god, which isn't correct, but in general God is logical.

[Ciryaher]

Believing in Evolution is not a religiously contradicting idea. Who is to say how the Power That Is didn't implement the evolution of speci [sp?] to create the diverse life of the Earth? Also, that same Power could have created the universe with a tremendous explosion, and made the earth to the point that is now at in 4.5 billion years. The Bible does not say "This is not so." The Bible is the interpretation that men more than 5,000 years ago made. They could not fathom a time so great as 4.5 billion years, or the evolution of species, or the scientific processes by which Everything was created.

And, Dengen, that sort of philosophy and observation is a very close-minded way of thinking. Of course, everyone is quick to point out faults, wrongdoings, and contradictions. It takes more wisdom to see that the good deeds of a group often outweigh the evils. The Muslims made outstanding contributions to the sciences, medicine, mathematics, and literature. The Christians have provided an ideology (and have by a strong majority, proven faithful in) of charity, kindness, and forgiveness. Religion in Rome provided social stability, and it wasn't until a breakdown in both morals and law that the Empire collapsed (Augustus Caesar pointed out that the lack of religion and the morals was leading to a decline in Rome...a very obvious change that I may sometime take time to explain).

Saying that religions are the implementors of greed, corruption, and political gain is not only wrong in fact, but also wrong in idea.

[HLGStrider]

I believe I got into a long conversation with Harad about this a long while ago...
There are various ways to integrate evolution in with Christianity (or Judaism) such as the gap theory, the day-age theory... etc. I never found any of them to hold water, but they exist.
Anyway, I think we should avoid discussing that here. I think we could avoid what happened between myself and Harad, which turned into a regular back and forth battle, but it really isn't the place.
Personally I don't believe that the age of the Bible makes it any less reliable. Most theories of incorporation actually hold that the Bible is correct but that we have mistransalated a few words in the Genisus account.

I believe that creation did happen and that Evolution was invented by a man who could not contemplate the idea of an all powerful God.

Since then it has been taken as fact, and it will remain "scientific" fact probably until the end of days.

[Ciryaher]

I think you have to take a great deal of the history of the Old Testament with a grain of salt, just as you should any other ancient writing. I take all of the teachings and morals of the Bible into thought, but the events have to be considered more deeply, and the essence of each story has to be sifted until the fundamental facts are found. Humans have a habit of being in one event and seeing something differently and then writing something even further from actuality.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Believing in Evolution is not a religiously contradicting idea. Who is to say how the Power That Is didn't implement the evolution of speci [sp?] to create the diverse life of the Earth? Also, that same Power could have created the universe with a tremendous explosion, and made the earth to the point that is now at in 4.5 billion years. The Bible does not say "This is not so." The Bible is the interpretation that men more than 5,000 years ago made. They could not fathom a time so great as 4.5 billion years, or the evolution of species, or the scientific processes by which Everything was created.

Actually, the Bible does specifically say how long it took. Either you have to take those things as inspired or bunk. To say that God created life as an evolutionary process is to do away with the entirety of Christianity. The thread of man being made in the image of God and formed by the dust of the ground permeates throughout the rest of scripture. If man evolved, then:

1) there was no issue of sin
2) there is no need for restoration to how God created man in the beginning. The issue of Christ's life and ministry is meaningless because he came to restore man back to his image and remove the sin problem.
3) The idea of an interpersonal God involved in His creation is meaningless, yet the Bible emphasises throughout how important man is to God because of his specialness in creation.

Either you take it, or you don't. Some things you can attribute to ancient ignorance (i.e. how they viewed and interpreted the cosmos in their own limited thinking). but an issue like the creation of man whose meaning and purpose is ingrained throughout scripture is a whole other story.

[Ciryaher]

I'm not saying that all things upon the Earth evolved. My own personal ideas would best be reserved for a specific debate on Christianity, and I will not go through the length of explaining them. I will conclude by saying that I do not agree with the idea that evolution contradicts divine creation.

[Dengen-Goroth]

HLG Strider, I must beg to differ, wisdom is the same as knowledge within a certain interpretation. The definition of wisdom from the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

1a: accumulated philosophic or scientific learning: KNOWLEDGE
Need I say more?

As for the Crusades, I whole heartedly agree as to your statement of perversion of religion. Christendom has had all to many instances of such occurrences.
Moral Codes are in many ways obvious, you don't enjoy theft so you outlaw it. You don't enjoy murder, you outlaw it. I believe along the lines of what Aristotle said:

The moral virtues, then, are produced in us neither by nature nor against nature. Nature, indeed, prepares in us the ground for their reception, but their complete formation is the product of habit.

By habit I believe he refers to something near to common sense.
As to my "misinterpretation" of Isaiah, 45:9, the way in which you described it is how I interpreted it as well:).

Cir, I do, and did not wish to demean religion in any sort of way, nor do I wish to appear as simply one who criticizes. Christianity, for instance, has yielded great art, architecture, and in some respects literature. It has, however, hindered in many regards science, and that is a great loss to man *within my point of view*.

Religion in Rome provided social stability, and it wasn't until a breakdown in both morals and law that the Empire collapsed

This is very much what I was trying to get at, that religion provided a moral base for many civilizations. The Romans collapsed because of a wide spectrum of reasons; social decay, weakness within army (issues with mercenaries, etc.), volatile government, etc. Many believe that Christianity may have had a great effect as well, linking with the social decay, because Roman society was based upon pagan “values”, and this was changed by Christian “values”. And I did not intend for my post to be interpreted as stating that religion, as a concept, was responsible for greed, corruption, and political gain. I meant that it was employed by man for those ends. I thank you for pointing out by error in stating this:)

[Dr. Ransom]

Great thread topic Lady G.

Actually I believe that a theistic Christian (yes, there are non-theistic Christian, how that works, I have no idea) can discuss logic at least as well as a non-christian. However, I think a lot of Christians are complete nutcases when it comes to using their brains, and to them, their life and faith is based more on emotion than on logical thought.

Most of the truely brillent greats of Science, like Kepler, Newton, and the like (these guys would make the most modern "scientist" look like a fool) were at least theistic. So I like to think that Christianity in a sence, invented Reason. There are some historical figures who agree with me too, like Anselm.

My thought on the topic at hand. I am not sure actually, because I believe that religion is the 1# thing keeping people from knowing God. So without God (assuming all "higher" powers, including deamons and the like), I have no idea what would happen. Since you can't seperate the different parts of human existance, such as mind and body, what would happen if you completely took away the spiritual part of mankind. I think we would probably have a pchysofrenic breakdown of somekind :-)

And BTW
I don't think even a Catholic would argue that the Crusades were not a twisted and perverted form of Christianity for political purposes.

[Eriol]

Wow, I feel guilty. (I knew this would cause some friction though). What was supposed to be a side remark about my training began a chain reaction of posts about Evolution vs. the Bible. This surely deserves a thread of its own. Back to this one:

HLG Strider, I must beg to differ, wisdom is the same as knowledge within a certain interpretation. The definition of wisdom from the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

This is quite beside the point. If the lexical definition agrees, that does not mean that the Bible uses thes words to mean the same concept. As Elgee pointed out, in the Bible, Wisdom and Knowledge do not mean the same thing.

“The price of wisdom is above rubies.” Job, 28:18
“He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” Ecclesiastes, 1:18


There is no contradiction here, for the two words have completely different meanings. This can be attested only by reading these books, do not take my word for it, check it yourself Dengen.

[HLGStrider]

Thanks, Eriol... I was just about to say that.

I do not know for sure, DG, but I bet if you took a Biblical concordance and checked it out, there would be two different words used for Wisdom and Knowledge (Hebrew words)... just like their are two different words for killing one defining murder and another defining self defense. That's just a bet, however.


I think you have to take a great deal of the history of the Old Testament with a grain of salt,

I totally disagree. There is a line driven through the Bible involving Grace, which alters are reactions to some Old Testament morals (Voiding the stoning of adulturesses etc), but otherwise I believe everything in that book. A lot of it has been historically verified. There is a lot of Geological proof involving the Flood. They've found tablets which prove that there was a King David... etc. It'd be pointless to deny it.

I think as long as people believe in God, gods, godess, godesses, etc there will be religions. A religion is basically the way you worship a diety. People will always do it differently, even if we all believed in the same God... so religion and God go hand in hand, be this for good or bad.

[Ciryaher]

You're free to take everything you read literally, but I will do no such thing. After all, if you take the Old Testament to heart, then I hope that you never eat pork and do absolutely no work on the Sabbath and being true to the Word written.

[HLGStrider]

The pork thing was to protect people from diseases that are transmitted through pork..

Also, it was voided out by the vision Peter had of the sheet being lowered down... I think in Acts.

Likewise the Sabbath was "remodeled" by Jesus, though I still believe it should be kept holy (Which I have never really done... I'm afraid).

[Ciryaher]

According to the Bible, the only mammals that you are permitted to eat are those with split hooves and that chew the cud. Only certain birds (this excluded the raptors, etc.) and nearly all fishes were allowed (except sharks, squid, rays, etc.). Why is that? I haven't heard of many raptor or shark-transmitted diseases.

[Thorin]

Actually, unclean meats as dictated by Leviticus was one of the few Jewish ceremonial laws that was not abrogated by Christ for the Christian. How is the bat, the crow, the horse, the pig any better fit for consumption now then they were back then? God didn't make any animals for eating initially. He allowed it but established strict rules. God, Himself set up the rules for his people if they should go ahead and eat meat. Why should God change His mind about it later? Some animals were not fit to be eaten. Not because of any health issues, but because God established some for meat, and some for not. Anyone who seems to think that this rule was only for the Jewish people sell God short.

As for the Sabbath, there is no mention whatsoever of abrogation of the Sabbath commandment or Sunday observance in the scriptures. Anyone who tries to justify Sunday worship solely on the scriptures has no concrete basis. The few texts that people try to use against the Sabbath are grossly misinterpreted out of context.

The Sabbath/Sunday debate didn't become an issue until well after the apostles (who were all, including Paul, Sabbath keepers) died. In 135 A.D and 150 A.D. Barnabas and Justin Martyr made a case the Roman leaders for Sunday observance. Why? Because it was easier to convert the Pagan romans who believed in the sun god, nd to distance themselves from the Jews who were far from in favor with the Romans. Not because the Sabbath was a Jewish holy day, but because the Romans associated them with such. The 2nd century church was very anti-semetic and tried to diassociate themselves as much as possible.

Evidence has the Christian descendants of the Jerusalem church keeping the Sabbath well into the 4th and 5th centuries.

[HLGStrider]

Actually I wasn't referring to celebrating on Sunday vs. Saturday, I was referring to the very strict Sabbath observance which didn't want Jesus to heal on the Sabbath or his disciples to pick wheat on the Sabbath.

[Eledhwen]

Jesus said that man wasn't made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man. Just consider - three thousand years ago plus, God said everyone had to have a day off every week ... that's everyone, not just the idle rich. How long did it take the rest of the world to catch up with that one?

[Húrin Thalion]

So I like to think that Christianity in a sence, invented Reason. There are some historical figures who agree with me too, like Anselm.

I will have to disagree strongly. Reason and logical thinking have followed man as long as we can trace it back. That is something that we are all borne with and may or may not develop further. The real logical thinking as we mean with the word today was first developed by the Greek philosophers in the "classic" era of ancient Greece. That tradition was then taken on and preserved by the only people who were learned in the ancient arts, the priests and monks. It was not developed through the religion but through it's followers, note the difference. They did not develop reason and logic because they were christian, htey did so because they were humans.

Húrin Thalion

[HLGStrider]

Actually some of the greater reasoners based their reason on God... What was his name... I quoted him in an essay the other day...

Anyway, it is common.

The idea that the universe has reason and order is a theistic idea.

According to C.S. Lewis for instance the reformation was the bigger cause of growth in thought than the renisance... though he was considered wrong by many experts.

[Rogue666666]

O, come on people, the whole religion thing completely depends on faith, and I think that this thread has gone off track from the orginal question. Yes, I think that religion still would remain after it was "proven" that there was no way God could exist. Many, no matter what you tell them, (and this goes for athiests too) will not believe you or simply deny the evidence.

OK, let me give you a little scientific lesson on evolution. As some of you might know, the cell is the basic building blocks of life. All the parts of a cell work together to keep the other parts going. According to evolution, the cell devoloped gradually over billions of years. Let me ask you, how does a thing that requires every part to be working for the thing itself to be working develope over billions of years? It is NOT possible for a cell to be slowly developed . All the parts have to be there at the same time working together. So the only way for a cell to form is spontaneuosly.

Well, last time I checked, 'spontaneuosly' could not be defined as a few billion years.

(Please excuse spelling)

[HLGStrider]

definately off topic, but that's where we decided to go... Some rabbit trails cannot be seriously ignored.

[Rogue666666]

Coudn't be ignored? WHY? If this rabbit trail was ignored would the world be a worse place? Possibly, but not by much. WE should all be carefull when saying that something can't be seriously ignored.

(AND yes, I do always have to get the last word in an argument.)

[HLGStrider]

You think you always have to have the last word? How do you think I got my post count?

Anyway, it couldn't seriously be ignored because someone stated a falacy of such broad proportions that ignoring it would have made me start screaming... and I don't like to scream.

[Rogue666666]

I see. Point taken.:)

[Nefmariel]

I think some people would stop, and crime would increase :eek: ! thats bad good thing this is hypothetical

[HLGStrider]

You can never find a true answer to a hypothetical question... the universe is too big to deal with in that way.

[reem]

as much as i found these discussions interesting, i was still unable to read all the posts, so i'll just answer the first question and then go on to express some of my views on the other tangential subjects brought up...but not all of them!!
i think that as time passes people will indeed reffer less and less to religion, or at least, develop new concepts and change old ones into what they see as fit for their times and situations. we can see that this has happened many a times in the past with the older religions.
not believing in god and the afterlife will, i think, create low moral. suicides will increase, and people will feel more free to do what they want even if it means hurting others because they don't believe that they will have to pay for their actions later. moralist and ethical views will pobably still be present, but less and less people will be likely to follow them since they will feel that it's 'no fun' to be a goody-two-shoes.
and people don't really need religions to start wars and fights with each other. wars and conflicts start becuse they're part of human nature...or rather, the ignorant part of human nature. i believe and want something so i want everyone else to believe and want it too. if i can't get it the nice way then i'll try to get it the hard way.
if people with different beliefs, views, goals, whatever, don't fight their contradictors, then they'll find reasons to fight between themselves. this is seen in ALL religions, sects, countries...etc
we are who we are. we never change. human nature stays the same. it's just the concepts that change.
my view on the three religions; jewdism, christianity, islam:
there is NOTHING wrong with any of them. they are all perfect. it's the PEOPLE who've messed everything up. people twist things to better suit themselves. the jihad part, for example, is a concept that says that muslims MUST protect their religion, people and themselves against agressors and enemies of God.
now this statement can be used in many ways.
some people use it as an excuse to attack their opponents and be able to call for the backing of the followers of islam.
it's more of a political thing now a days than religious.
....i think i'll stop talking now, i can get over-excited sometimes!!
reem

[HLGStrider]

This is obviously an emotional topic as well as a logical and spiritual one. It would be hard to not feel fervant about it... I agree with most of your conclusions, but I don't think it will ever happen. As I have already posted, Voltaire predicted Christianity had only about a hundred years left to live before it was reasoned out, and it didn't happen. Also, as Rogue posted, people wouldn't give up their faiths easily. Many people do not feel that faith needs a logical backing for one. For another, facts can be manipulated, and people will state that the facts were manipulated in this case.

People can say "But what if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?" but is that really possible? Nothing can be proven that way. People are people. If they want to doubt they will doubt. If they want to believe they will believe. You can offer people tons of "proof" and they will not change their minds.

So I say it will never happen.

[reem]

it's true, people only believe what they want to believe no matter the lack or presence of proof. but what will never happen? that people will give up their faiths easily? or that proof could be given to support the faith in christianity or any other religion?
and i don't agree with your statemen that people will not give up their religions easily. only the extremely deeply-rooted faiths can not be altered. this depends on the character and mentality of the individual.
look at us now. can we really honestly call our selves christians, muslim or jews??
how many of us stick to the old/origional teachings? do we perform all our prayers? do we do ANY of them? are we good people? do we help others in thier times of need, never lie of cheat, wear decent clothing or any of the other stuff i'm sure all three religions call for?
the answer to most of the questions is undoubtedly 'no'.
so tell me how loyal are we to our faiths? we can all call our selves christians (or what ever your religion is) but we aren't really. to be a christian we must 'faithfully' follow the christian teachings, must we not?
a very scant minority can be called faithfull followers. the rest are...well, i don't know what we are, (i include myself too because i'm no saint either!).
so i think before anyone can start preaching, they should consider their own lives and past actions.
i can't predict the future...no one can. but from what i see, it's obvious that as time passes faiths will grow weaker and weaker.
to prove this you only have to look at the kind of TV shows and movies we have today. look at books and the style of clothing. pretty soon we'll be going out in our underwear!! what's left?
what ever happens, i doubt that it'll be good. i'm just happy i'm living in our present time. if we don't destroy ourselves in the next 500--no, make that 200 years, we'll at least have a very depressing version of life.
oh well, but what do i know, really? i'm just a kid who over-reads fantasy and fiction novels and has no real eperience in life....
merry christmas every one.
reem

[HLGStrider]

You're probably not a heck of a lot younger than me...

However, Christianity is at least not a set of rules and being a Christian isn't doing something but believing something. If we all followed the rules it would be better, of course, but I believe there is a verse that says "Nothing is unlawful for me to do, only somethings are unhealthful.." or something similar, that is out of memory.

I do admit, however, that our belief system has become weaker, and I have stated that morality has, but it will never disappear entirely.

Remember when Elijah called out in the wilderness that he was the only one. God replied that he had reserved I think it was a thousand to himself...

When there are no more true followers of God on this planet the end will come... because when that happens the world will be such a nasty place that only the end can save it from itself.

[Rogue666666]

Possibly, but I believe that the end is coming a lot sooner then that. There are many Christians who believe that Christ is going to return and that the rapture is going to take place. Then everyone who believes in christ will be taken to heaven, and everyone else will be Left Behind.

[reem]

actually, the comming of christ is mentioned and predicted in the Holy Quran (holy book of islam, kind of like christian bible). but in islam it is believed that christ was never killed. God saved him...i'm not sure how, it's not mentioned. but it says that either 40 days or years before judgement day christ will come back and lead humanity to truth and to deliverance.
any how, i don't have much to add to this subject anymore, and i'll not be able to send anything for the next week or so, so i'll just say bye now and hopefully send you later soon:)
but i think we shouldn't go too deep into anything. there is only so much that we can say on a particular subject!
have a nice weekend everyone:)
reem

[Eriol]

and people don't really need religions to start wars and fights with each other. wars and conflicts start becuse they're part of human nature...or rather, the ignorant part of human nature. i believe and want something so i want everyone else to believe and want it too. if i can't get it the nice way then i'll try to get it the hard way.
if people with different beliefs, views, goals, whatever, don't fight their contradictors, then they'll find reasons to fight between themselves. this is seen in ALL religions, sects, countries...etc
we are who we are. we never change. human nature stays the same. it's just the concepts that change.


It seems we are worshipping a new god here -- 'human nature'. Now what I will say next is also a part of 'human nature', and even more than the will to start wars and conflicts: we need an Absolute. We need an Universal concept, to be our reference in life. It can be History, the State, Mankind, or even Myself, but we can't make head or tails of life without the Absolute. Monotheism is the belief that this Absolute is a Living Person, with a Will, Intellect, and other things we only see in Persons. But even if we discard the personal aspect, we can't function without the Absolute itself -- even if we do not acknowledge it! It would be like Calvin's memorable answer to the question he himself asked to Susie, "how does it feel to be a girl? Is it like being a bug?"

I think bugs and girls have a dim consciousness that nature has played a cruel trick on them...

:D ;)

Now on a brighter note: We easily discern trends in recent history and assume they will go on at the same rate and in the same direction. Luckily, it never happens. There were periods of less morality and less faith (and even less clothes) than our own. History has a knack for surprising us... since it rests on our free choices!

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Possibly, but I believe that the end is coming a lot sooner then that. There are many Christians who believe that Christ is going to return and that the rapture is going to take place. Then everyone who believes in christ will be taken to heaven, and everyone else will be Left Behind.

If you're basing that on the Left Behind series, you might as well be reading the National Enquirer. The Bible shows in Matthew 24 that the signs of the end are everywhere and His coming is near. However, His coming is the Second Coming where every eye will see him and the dead will be raised. There will be no "secret" rapture, but a literal and visible one.

The rapture is mostly founded on misinterpretation of texts showing the literal second coming, and a misapplied interpretation of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel (i.e. the seven years of so called tribulation)

Why would Satan need Satanists, occultists and atheists to deceive the world? God's own people are doing it for him. :rolleyes:

[Rogue666666]

Thorin, we could go in to a very deep debate about this. No, I beleived in what I said before I ever heard of the Left behind series.

I base it on the Word of God. You should try reading it more often. And then maybe you should try proving a point by pointing at MORE than one scripture.

Personally, I think that you may be correct. The fact is, I don't care. My main goal in life is not to figure out how or when He is returning, becuase if we all did that we would miss our main call as Christians. I'm more concerned with saving people from going to hell. ( Mods, I am not attpemting to use foul languadge).

In the end do you think it will REALLY matters how He comes back to all those lost souls?

Maybe we should do something about THEM before we start attacking eachother.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
I base it on the Word of God. You should try reading it more often. And then maybe you should try proving a point by pointing at MORE than one scripture.

Alrighty then. Would you like to go into this debate if you think I've exhausted all my scriptural text on this? I can tell you, there is much more.

My intention was not to go into all the bibilical evidence on this matter, but I can assure you, dear Rogue that anyone who will be doing the "pointing at one scripture" will be you if you are going to try and support the idea of a secret rapture because it doesn't exist. So don't pass judgement on my biblical knowledge when you don't seem to have the facts.

Originally posted by Rogue666666
The fact is, I don't care. My main goal in life is not to figure out how or when He is returning, becuase if we all did that we would miss our main call as Christians. I'm more concerned with saving people from going to hell. Maybe we should do something about THEM before we start attacking eachother.

Our duty as Christians is to present the gospel truth and discern and understand that which the scriptures hold, not just wash over the areas we don't feel is necessary. This attitude of "Who cares about doctrine! Let's just save souls!" is not only irresponsible but also potentially dangerous to one's spirituality.

Apparently you miss the fact that Satan will try to deceive many concerning the second coming of Christ. If the Bible says that even the "very elect" will be deceived, don't you think the average joe on the street needs to know what is truth and what isn't? (see Matthew 24:23-31) If one believes that there is going to be a second chance for those who aren't "raptured" away, then there is no worry for accountability now. The Bible says that many will be caught unaware and it will be too late. There is only one, visible, literal coming and we must all be ready.

So yes, Rogue, it SHOULD matter a great deal on how we understand the meaning of His coming (not the time or date) because it CAN affect our eternity.

[HLGStrider]

I think half or Rogue's complaint is the place, Thorin. If two Christians start to tear into each other in what is bound to become a heated debate in front of atheists it isn't going to look good. I know you both have firm beliefs on this... so why don't you take it to pm?

[Rogue666666]

Of course we might take the debate to pm's but I didn't join the Tolkien Forum to debate about Christian theology.

Thorin, of course it is important, everything you pointed out is important, but it is not THE most important. The purpose of the Church is to instruct people in doctrine. My point was, that if Christains spend most of their time arguing about doctrine, we're not going to get anybody saved. FIRST you explain to them the very basics, and then you can go on to teach them everything they need to know. But all the doctrine in the world won't get them saved unless we go out there and tell them about it.

If you believe that their is one final coming, then you should be all the more fervent in reaching lost souls, not in arguing over HOW He is coming. The point is, we both agree that he is returning, so why don't we try to build off of that basis, instead of arguing over the finer points.

What effects out eternity is whether we are saved or not. In the end, it doesn't matter if Christ returns, a tribulation follows, or if he just returns once and for all. What matters is that WHEN he returns we have reached as much of the population as is possible.

:D

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Thorin, of course it is important, everything you pointed out is important, but it is not THE most important. The purpose of the Church is to instruct people in doctrine. My point was, that if Christains spend most of their time arguing about doctrine, we're not going to get anybody saved. FIRST you explain to them the very basics, and then you can go on to teach them everything they need to know. But all the doctrine in the world won't get them saved unless we go out there and tell them about it.

However, a misunderstanding of the doctrine could very well affect how one ultimately looks at, or understand's God's character which could very well affect one's salvation. If one's theology is not biblically sound, then they are susceptable to deception which will ultimately affect one's salvation. The Gospel of the good news is all inclusive. God and His law and His doctrine is not separate from His all encompassing love. There is no dichotomy between grace and law, obedience and faith. They are all part of the same package. To learn one is to understand the other.

Originally posted by Rogue666666
If you believe that their is one final coming, then you should be all the more fervent in reaching lost souls, not in arguing over HOW He is coming. The point is, we both agree that he is returning, so why don't we try to build off of that basis, instead of arguing over the finer points...What effects out eternity is whether we are saved or not. In the end, it doesn't matter if Christ returns, a tribulation follows, or if he just returns once and for all. What matters is that WHEN he returns we have reached as much of the population as is possible.

If you've read Matthew 24, you will see that HOW Christ comes is more important than WHEN for we don't know when. The scriptures point exactly HOW he will come. If we don't understand that, we can be deceived as Matthew points out. Being ready for His coming entails understanding exactly how he is coming. To not ground yourself in the method of His coming is to potentially open yourself up for deception which can lull you into a false sense of security (like the rapture) which will ultimately make you unprepared for His coming.

One affects the other.

[Robin]

Religon can only be true when you believ:cool:

[reem]

here's a thought, why not just stick to the very basics of our religions and be done with it? because seriously, if you want to go into details, no one will agree with anyone. i know for a fact...and a proven one too! so if you're christian, then follow the basics of christianity (i.e praying, being good, being honest...etc), if you're jewish, then also do the same and follow the basics, and this goes for all. i find that debating subjects like religion and politics are very messy and never get any one anywhere. so just do what you believe in as long as it's not hurting others and go on with life. it's no one's job to convince anyone of anything if they don't want to be convinced...
reem

[Thorin]

Originally posted by reem
Because seriously, if you want to go into details, no one will agree with anyone. i know for a fact... i find that debating subjects like religion and politics are very messy and never get any one anywhere. so just do what you believe in as long as it's not hurting others and go on with life. it's no one's job to convince anyone of anything if they don't want to be convinced...
reem

The reason why your statement is true, reem, is because no one wants to follow an ultimate standard anymore. When Christian's are denying the validity of the Bible for their faith, or the Jew the Torah, or the Muslim the Koran, then what you have is an eventual creation of strange beliefs (according to your faith) moving farther and farther away from the standard that should be followed. Hence, you have a "I'll believe what I want to believe no matter what" mentality and that is hard to convince someone otherwise. Then you move into the realm of "who cares" and unreasonability. The reason why so many arguments erupt from arguing religion is not because of someone pushing their beliefs, it is because no one wants to try and PROVE why they believe what they believe, they can't support what they believe, they ignore the standard of the faith they claim to follow and they have no foundation for logical and reasonable discussion. Therefore it is easy to get defensive when one challenges you to support what you believe.

[HLGStrider]

Originally posted by Robin
Religon can only be true when you believ:cool:

I don't think so. If God exists He exists independentally of believers or belief. A religion as a way of worshipping can only exist when people follow it as a lot of religion is custom, but if there is truth behind that religion, the truth will always exist, no matter who denies it. . .

[reem]

well if you're going to go on about 'proving', thorin, then i must say that alot of people who think they can prove what they believe aren't always logical. they might 'think' thta they're proving something and they see it as 1+1+2, but to other's they make no sence what so ever.
but one thing that i've found to be undisputable is the existance of the one God. i believe this. i don't believe that God has any sons or daughters or mothers or any other familly member. to believe such a thing would just take us back to the days of pagan romanism where there was zues and his extended family!
you, and many others, would most probably disagree very strongly and give 'proofs' against this statement of mine, which i believe...no wait...'know' to be a fact. you will then bring me 'proof' from the bible (if you're christian, and i think i remember that u are..if my memory isn't mistaken) which, to me, is no proof at all. how can u 'proove' anything to anyone if they also bring other proof which probably sounds even more convincing...and even when someone may prove you wrong, you will still want to cling to your own beliefs and ignore the other's.
we believe something in my religion, and that is only God decides who he'll show the way and who will be lost. no matter how much undoubtable proof you get.
so what more could you possibly do than to just lay down what u know and leave the rest to whom ever it may concern??
reem

[Thorin]

Originally posted by reem
But one thing that i've found to be undisputable is the existance of the one God. i believe this. i don't believe that God has any sons or daughters or mothers or any other familly member.....you will then bring me 'proof' from the bible (if you're christian, and i think i remember that u are..if my memory isn't mistaken) which, to me, is no proof at all. how can u 'proove' anything to anyone if they also bring other proof which probably sounds even more convincing.....so what more could you possibly do than to just lay down what u know and leave the rest to whom ever it may concern??
reem

Saying a blanket statement like, "I believe there is a God" is something that most faiths can support. i.e., there is a fundamental foundation for such a belief which can be shown by many religious dogmas. If you have your own proof that contradicts mine, great! At least you are using a foundation that your derive your beliefs from.

Its when people make a smorgasbord of many doctrines and faiths and decide that this is going to be their 'new' religion no matter what contradicts what or what is denied, and then they say, "I don't have to prove anything. Its what I believe and its right." To me that is shallow and meaningless. I can go around and believe that E=mc2 proves that coffee boils faster than tea and be content. That doesn't make it true and it only makes me look like a close minded idiot.

Yet this is what many people are doing with faiths such as Christianity. They get their foundation of beliefs such as "heaven" "hell", "punishment" and "salvation" from the Bible, yet they deny the truth of these things that the scripture shows and decide to create their own fantasies with no way of supporting it. Yet without the Bible, they would not even have any basis. To me that is like biting the hand that feeds you. And then they have the gall to say that they are a "Christian". How contradictory is that?

[reem]

:) vert contradictory! but you have to keep in my that this happens in every religion:) can we all really say that we are trully and faithfully following every letter of our doctrine or religion?
...i don't know about you, but i sure aint. and i'm not so happy about it either because i'm really convinced that following my religion would really make me a better person and will give me a more satisfying and complete life...not to mention bringing me closer to God.
but what does that mean? we're all hypocrates? we probably are in many ways, but the question is 'what can you do about it???'!!
nothing! that's jsut it! you can't force anyone into anything! you can rant and rave at the world but no one will care. so why bother? you do what youhave to do. stay with those who 'care' and make sure that you live your lives the way you should. you will (defanitely) not find this easy, but do it anyway if you're really sincere about what you're saying here. the rest will be as it will be.
reem

[HLGStrider]

Some people are natural bother-ers. We can't help bothering. I get into arguements all the time I know I can't win because I know there is no way that other person is going to change his/her views.

What we believe doesn't change truth. What we believe can't touch truth if truth exists. If truth doesn't exist there isn't much of a point to argueing about anything. If it does we should strive to find it AND to help others find it. We can't always prove truth, God exists above our plane, but I believe it is powerful and will eventually win out. . . if not on this earth then afterwards.

[reem]

ofcourse there is a Truth, and it's usually staring us right in the face but most of us just plain ignore it or blind ourselves to it. (by 'us' i mean the human race)some of us just don't give a damn and are having too much fun doing what ever they're doing to bother ourselves with it. does that change the Truth? no it doesn't.
and when some of us actually see it and follow it, i believe that we should tell others about it, but only tell those who are ready to listen...otherwise all our efforts are in vain and we're only waisting our time on those who don't deserve it. so don't bother arguing with those who you know will not listen. that's just what i'm trying to say.
reem

[HLGStrider]

Well, some seed will fall by the wayside, some snatched up by birds, others choked out by thorns. . .There's much truth in that. . .though I know that story is from my religion and not yours (I don't know if yours has similar statements).

Still, I'm too optimistic not to keep arguing. . .

[Thorin]

Originally posted by reem
ofcourse there is a Truth, and it's usually staring us right in the face but most of us just plain ignore it or blind ourselves to it. (by 'us' i mean the human race)some of us just don't give a damn and are having too much fun doing what ever they're doing to bother ourselves with it. does that change the Truth? no it doesn't.

But if you have no foundation, truth is relative. What is truth? Sanctify them through Thy truth: thy Word is truth. - John 17:17

Until you can agree to that, we will always be at odds as to what is the truth.

[HLGStrider]

If we didn't have the Bible truth would be the same (I believe the Bible is truth, so I am using this as an example), we just wouldn't have anything that clearly states what it is. Thankfully, God did not "leave us hanging."

Not all people believe the Bible is truth, however, so if they don't you have to use other methods to argue with them because they'll just reject what you say from the scripture.

Same goes for someone who believes the Koran (K'Ran? Koran? Quaran? I am sorry, but I can't remember how to spell it.) is truth. They will argue and you will not except it.

So, mostly we are left without a foundation in arguements such as these. There are a few things all religions agree on, of course, and a few things are common sense to most people (Very few people disagree with "Thou shalt not kill," por ejemplo. . .for example that is, I've been taking too much Spanish. ..). Other than that you can just state what you believe is truth and hope it will stand whatever people throw at it. . .and truth does not always win arguements. There are people who can argue that a rock will float convincingly. There are people who can't "prove" that a rock will sink no matter how hard they argue. Sad but true.

So we humans are left with the finiteness of our own knowledge. . .boy, I'm sounding high and mighty today. . .or at least rhetorical. . .Using a lot of big words. . .;) must've been something I ate. . . he he.

[reem]

actually it's written as Quran, the Q happens to be the colsest alphabet to a guteral alphabet that Arabs have and forieners can't usually pronounce it easily.
it's true that we need to base truth on something, and i believe that something would be the three books (i,e, Torrah, Bible, and the Quran). but it is generally beleived (and with much proof, in some cases) that some of these books have been tampered with.
words have been changed in some places, while entire paragraphs and chapters were changed in others. we have to admit that there was much corruption in priests of old. but where all three books agree then it is undoubtably truth.
we all beleive that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, dishonesty and meanness are wrong. we believe that we should pray, give charity,...etc. (that is if you're following one of the three religions i'm talking about).
we can prove the importance of these things and their 'correctness' by using common logic, if not by quoteing out of our Holy books. but as i said, no matter how much sense you make, most people won't listen.
reem

[HLGStrider]

A good study bible will tell where there is suspected tampering. . .For instance I was reading in Luke the other day and there was a section which had a note on it "These three verses are not found in several importants scrolls. . ." Meaning it was possible they were added. I like things like that. Also, most concordances will give you the original word, which helps.

Most of these books are surprisingly intact for their age.

[Eriol]

I'm bringing this to the top due to the recent discussion about a Religious Guild.

It also is nostalgic, for me :).