Religion

[Osymandus]

What the hell is a "put upon Christian"? I'm not portraying myself as anything, this isn't the playground. This is where real people discuss real issues without hiding behind stupid facades and playacting, at least that's what I hope it is.

I'm not naive, I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt. You'll genereally get further that way.

A term a fair amount of people have come out with due to a change in perception of the church, mainly ion the media .
I do and i have from my prior posts . Your correct this is , its also a public forum where matters are discussed and we do not bow to statement based rhetoric or emotive statements . Will you be offering reference to information or just being outraged at an opposing view (of which i have stated is my opinion)

[Osymandus]

@theplacebo
May i just make this line clear for you " the social control and manipulation of many established churches /religions through history and nothing in comparison "

It is a general phrase to represent the state control of some relgions based in societies through History , Church of England , Islamic state's and Jewish homelands all included (as well as the Mayan /Aztec , the Confusican influence of the early Chinese Dynasty's and to finish the Royal control of the Pharaohs of Dynastic Egypt (yes i can also mention the Olympian Athena Greeks and pre Christian Rome ).

It is an Historical fact that these cultures were bound up and controlled by the religious doctrine and ideologies of their day . Some still are.

[Evasura]

Meditation . It was first doe (teh MRI scans ) on Buddhist monks . Anyone can learn to do it . Its all about the discipline . The goal of all of it is normally the union with "insert flavour" divinity (either Nirvana, Gnosis , Shiva and Shakti etc)

Not sure yet how this quote thing works yet, anyway, I was meaning to reply to this, but I giot distracted by the believers/non believers discussion. It's alpha waves state, isn't it? I must say I have never managed to get to it through mneditation or chanting. Meditation just makes my mind wander off to my to-do list (probably I haven't stuck enough to it, as a friend who practices it says that it takes quite a long time to get it). About chants, I think it is because in my yoga group I find chants a bit of a snob joke. We (well they, as I don't) chant for one minute before starting the asanas and I bet half of the poeple don't even know what they are saying. The way that I think I do get there (I think, as I am not completely sure if that is what it's felt exactly in alpha eaves state, Nirvana, etc) is through the asanas, it is a very very nice feeling of relaxation, especially on head stand (all that serotonine release, yeah). It kind of blocks the part of my mind that I can't otherwise make stop thinking.
Just a nice sharing

[Evasura]

Ah!

[quote="ThePlacebo"]Personally, I find atheists are extremely aggressive, more so than religious people I know. When it comes to the Catholic church, we generally only evangalise when people ask us questions.

"The Evangelical Church is a movement of "Harvest-focused, Holiness-fueled" churches committed to establishing healthy multiplying churches that proclaim the Gospel of free and full salvation from all sin for all people. It is our intent to fulfill the Great Commission of Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations." (from theevangelicatchurch.org)

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, claiming more than a billion members.[1] Led by the Pope, it defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity." (from Wikipedia)

Not really correct that you only evangelise when people ask questions as it is in the core of your mission to convert as many people as possible.
About the tone and the comments on how aggressive we atheists are...just compare the tone of your posts with the tone of mine as an evidence of who sounds more aggressive

[ThePlacebo]

@ Osy: If I wanted reasoned argument, I'd go to a decent forum and post full-length posts. This is just amusing for me. Outrage is certainly not the best word to describe my current state of mind. And anyway, you waver between being just plain wrong (your comment about the Catholic church not being known as the Catholic church until the 1500s; just see the apostles creed) and not making sense. I haven't seen anything compelling from you.

@ Eva. Lol, chill dude. And spreading the gospel does not mean the conversion of people, you've taken that way out of context and twisted it for your own purposes (as atheists tend to do with anything religious). I may be bitterly sarcastic but I am certainly not aggressive, if you think I am I suggest you just harden up.

[Evasura]

@ Osy: If I wanted reasoned argument, I'd go to a decent forum and post full-length posts. This is just amusing for me. Outrage is certainly not the best word to describe my current state of mind. And anyway, you waver between being just plain wrong (your comment about the Catholic church not being known as the Catholic church until the 1500s; just see the apostles creed) and not making sense. I haven't seen anything compelling from you.

@ Eva. Lol, chill dude. And spreading the gospel does not mean the conversion of people, you've taken that way out of context and twisted it for your own purposes (as atheists tend to do with anything religious). I may be bitterly sarcastic but I am certainly not aggressive, if you think I am I suggest you just harden up.

Funny you tell me to chill when you even got to swear in one of you posts ("what the hell...").
About taking things way out of context. I haven't, I have pasted it from the introduction to an evangelical site. Could you explain to me exactly how it is taken out of context? my poor-little-understanding atheist mind does not understand how that is taken out of context. If you want I can paste the whole page here. here's another example, taken from the part of "our values"

our values:
"We value people becoming followers of Jesus Christ.
We believe God commands us to engage the harvest by bringing all people into a vital saving relationship with Jesus; therefore, we exhort each church to effectively impact their community through servant evangelism and to multiply through planting new churches in new communities.
We believe God commands us to provide a healthy church family for new believers as well as for the unchurched; therefore, we promote the revitalizing and renewal of existing churches through prayer, assessment tools and trained coaches who can walk with them into health.
We believe God commands us to disciple believers to experience the cleansing and empowering of the Holy Spirit in order to live holy lives out of a pure heart; therefore, a goal of discipleship, preaching, and teaching is to lead believers into this deeper life.
We believe God commands us to make disciples of all people; therefore, we actively recruit, appoint and place people overseas as well as working with ethnic groups in the United States. We partner with national churches as well as other mission groups to accomplish this mission"

We believe in a vital holy relationship with Jesus Christ; therefore, we boldly proclaim the necessity of being cleansed from sin through the in-filling of the Holy Spirit so that we may be Christ-like.

As you are studying evangelical studies I guess you know about this site. If not, you can find more of this on http://theevangelicalchurch.org

It does say very clearly "We believe God commands us to make disciples of all people". My first language is not English, but I think I know what "all people" means. Also, if spreading the gospel doesn't mean the conversion of people, can you explain to me exactly what is it when people from religious groups knock on my door (not once or twice, but quite a few times over my life) asking me if I believe in God and how I should believe in God and if I've read the Bible and about salvation of my soul etc? To me, that looks pretty much more like trying to convert me than me asking them. As I've said before, it's not all religions, but all these groups claim to be believers of God and Jesus Christ, so if you weren't aware of this happening, maybe the Catholic (or Christian, not sure if they are catholic or just sectarian Christian groups?) check out who's out there trying to spread the word in a very active way.

By the way, I remind you that it was you who started this whole topic and wanted to hear what people say. not sure why you get so offended about what we say. So far, you haven't given too much evidence to support of anything you say, and when you get it given, you can't accept it? Why is this a place only for justified opinions and not reasoned arguments? what is wrong with reasoned arguments? That is the way that i can give value to my opinions (and your opinions!).I would like to see some evidence for your arguments, instead of apparently unfounded generalizations, etc.

And now, yes, I am going to chill out. I am going to have a session of yoga, which will make me a much nicer, calmed and forgiving person, without the need of God

[Osymandus]

@ Osy: If I wanted reasoned argument, I'd go to a decent forum and post full-length posts. This is just amusing for me. Outrage is certainly not the best word to describe my current state of mind. And anyway, you waver between being just plain wrong (your comment about the Catholic church not being known as the Catholic church until the 1500s; just see the apostles creed) and not making sense. I haven't seen anything compelling from you.

@ Eva. Lol, chill dude. And spreading the gospel does not mean the conversion of people, you've taken that way out of context and twisted it for your own purposes (as atheists tend to do with anything religious). I may be bitterly sarcastic but I am certainly not aggressive, if you think I am I suggest you just harden up.

Ah I see you are so above the argument you have decided not to join it. The true mark of an intellect , and indeed an open minded council. I believe when you state someone is wrong you offer a counter argument or information , its a tradition you know.

You are aware that retro modification of documents by the catholic church happened as they were some of the only people to actually write in medieval Europe so there for also controlled the flow of knowledge .
Also as ive had the information confirmed by a very nice MA qualified in theology COE priest , a gnostic Bishop and a few other historians /theologians i would like your source to compare and contrast if you believe it to be more valid ?
For your information "Following the Reformation in the 16th century, the Church "in communion with the Bishop of Rome" used the term "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches that split off.[8] The name "Catholic Church" appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church while first used in the 2nd it is used widely after the reformation as i stated to help distinguish between the other variants . The word means as i also stated universal to make them seem as inclusive .


I'm certainly with Evasura here as well , the Shepard of souls who are born with original sin (again a concept Jesus never mentions in the New testament unless you wish to quote verse and passage for me ) collecting them for god's will and grace (the same god who and i quote "I am a cruel and jealous god and you shall have no others before me , also performs infanticide , genocide and flooding it's old testament so maybe its fine). Ill be fair I fin dteh following of War god's like Ares , Tyr and the Morrigan easier at least their honest

[ThePlacebo]

It's laughable that you guys keep asking for evidence. If I had evidence for what I believed, there would be no need for faith. The existence of God cannot be logically proven, but neither can the lack of an existence of God.

I've seen / heard of a lot of miracles taking place in my church, if that's the kind of evidence you're after. But wait, you don't believe in miracles... so it's pointless. We're just going to go round and round in circles, let's face it.

In any case, this will be my last post on this thread. I did want to know people's opinions; I'm certainly not "offended" by what people think, I reserve the right to defend myself and my beliefs in any many I like, whether it's up to your standards or not. But this whole thing is honestly draining my energy and it's a pain in the ass responding every day. I think both "sides" have been slightly petty but I'm prepared to draw a line in the sand. It's just not worth it.

But have the last word if you wish. I know you won't be able to resist.

P.S. Ironic that I'm the Christian any you're the ones that think "hell" is a swear word.

[Evasura]

Placebo,
I'm sorry that you feel the need to withdraw from the conversation. I actually thought it was really interesting and very didactic. And yes, I would like to say something (just to give you the pleasure to be right):
- The Hell: It was me who say you used a swear word when you said the "the hell". Not sure why you write it in plural when nobody else pointed at that (are you generalising again?mmm). It is not me who has clasify that word as a swear word. As stated before, my first language is not English, it's Spanish. In Spanish it's not a swear word. However, I am not allowed to use that word in class, because it's a swear word. Nothing against it, but it was you who used it. Even though the Hell as a swear word has a religious origin, the use of it once it has gone into language has nothing to do with religion.
- Evidence for the non existence of God: There is no need to justify the non existence of God, is there? You don't need to jusify something for which there is no evidence and doesn't exist. That's what I meant in my first post when I said about the teapot (which is not my argument, as many people know and I know that many people will disagree with this and that's the beauty of religious arguments). You're perfectly right that you believe as a matter of faith and it's something that you needn't give evindence for and that is why it's called "believe" and "faith". I just cannot believe in something that I have no evidence for, the same as you can believe in something you don't have evidence for. None of us can be forced to feel what we feel and we have the right to do so (as I've told you in a previous email). I'm still sorry that you don't want to share with us anymore.
- About miracles. It's not that I have something against them (I know you haven't said so). If I see one, I will believe in them (well, I won't believe; I'll know they happen). It's just that so far in my ife, I have never seen a miracle or something that has been called a miracle that has not been explained by science (again, please disagree with me). I would really like to see miracles, then I would really believe that there is a metaphysical being that causes them (not sure I would call it God, though. Can't tell).
- You talk in plural again when you say that we don't believe in the existance of God. It is me who has said that. In no moment Osymandus has said that. Actually it was him who pointed out that many scientists have religious inclinations as there are many questions related to the origins of the universe and life on the Earth that are not explained by science. There are forces on the way quarks work that not even the most studious atomic physicists understand why happen (dark matter, bossoms, why matter won antimatter, etc). It is me who says I cannot (I simply cannot) believe it is God who causes them. I tend not to give definitive responses for what I don't know.
Again, pity you cannot keep the argument going.
All the best
Enjoy your faith

[Osymandus]

It's laughable that you guys keep asking for evidence. If I had evidence for what I believed, there would be no need for faith. The existence of God cannot be logically proven, but neither can the lack of an existence of God.

I've seen / heard of a lot of miracles taking place in my church, if that's the kind of evidence you're after. But wait, you don't believe in miracles... so it's pointless. We're just going to go round and round in circles, let's face it.

In any case, this will be my last post on this thread. I did want to know people's opinions; I'm certainly not "offended" by what people think, I reserve the right to defend myself and my beliefs in any many I like, whether it's up to your standards or not. But this whole thing is honestly draining my energy and it's a pain in the ass responding every day. I think both "sides" have been slightly petty but I'm prepared to draw a line in the sand. It's just not worth it.

But have the last word if you wish. I know you won't be able to resist.

P.S. Ironic that I'm the Christian any you're the ones that think "hell" is a swear word.

I was actually asking for counter evidence for a historical fact on the structure of the church and not the existence of the Christian version of the divine . Faith is lovely . Like opinions its personal

[Captain_Ludd]

I'm a pantheist who currently follows atheism religiously .
Having said that if someone could provide some tangible rational scientifically testable evidence for a higher power than lord Lemmy Id be willing to listen so I’m probably closer to a hardcore agnostic, its just that I personally really struggle with the whole blind faith without proof thing.

[toxic_ange]

I don't believe in god or gods. I believe in energy, I can measure that, and I can study it's effects, and my reason for not believing in a higher power is that most days I can't even tell if I'm real. If I can't even commit to myself being a reality, well...

[Tokis86]

My stance on religion;

Religion: Not convinced by any of them.

I would describe myself as agnostic rather than Atheist though.

[LGC2108]

I'm Christian.

[Willr0490]

I am an atheist however I come from a (historically) Christian family.