Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You received an answer that obviously offended you.
Says you.
Quote:
Again, it isn't about YOU or how YOU feel of whether a religion should do something for us.
Actually, it is about me. It's about me and every other religious person who wants it to be about them.
Quote:
The answer was direct to your question and answered head on. You just didn't like the answer so keep re-writing my answer to say what you want it to say.
I did not say "you were self centered because you see value in religion even if it contains errors"
You posted that.
I think that you and I have nothing more to say to each other, Sierra. But if you just like to see your words on the screen, by all means, knock yourself out.
religion is about our direct and intimate relationship with the Creator.
of course the self is involved.
if you take your self out of it, there is no relationship.
how can you take about marriage if you take yourself out of the relationship?
it is simply empty words if you are not involved at a deeply personal level.
if it's just a bunch of theory and words without personal involvement, there is no point.
if you distance yourself from the Creator, and you are not only distancing you are removing yourself entirely, then there is no relationship
This is alot of different writers all agreeing on something. Let's give you a Cliff's Notes version. In the last 100 years, several non-religious ideologies came along. Communism, Fascism, Nazi, and the rise of Atheism (unlike the others was not very externally destructive, but had a higher than normal suicide and abortion rate). These all resulted in a great deal of death.
History proves nothing of the sort.
Quote:
Event Number of deaths (est.) Location
1. World War II 50,000,000 Worldwide
2. An Shi Rebellion 33,000,000 China
3. Mongol Conquest 30,000,000 Asia, Europe
4. Manchu Conquest 25,000,000 China 5.Taiping Rebellion 20,000,000 China
6. World War I 15,000,000 Worldwide
7. Timur Conquests 15,000,000 Asia 8. Dungan Revolt 8,000,000 China
9. Russian Civil War 5,000,000 Russia
10. Second Congo War 3,800,000 Congo
11. Napoleonic Wars 3,500,000 Worldwide 12.Thirty Years' War 3,000,000 Europe
13. Yellow Turban 3,000,000 China
Rebellion
14. Polish-Lithuanian 3,000,000 Europe
Deluge
15. Korean War 2,500,000 Korea
16. Vietnam War 2,495,000 Asia 17. French Wars 2,000,000 France of Religion
18. Shaka's Conquests 2,000,000 Africa 19. Second Sudanese 1,000,000 Sudan Civil War 20. Crusades 1,000,000 Middle East
Even combining all of the wars in which religious beliefs help to identify the two sides (in italics on the chart) produces a total of 35 million deaths from six wars, or an average of 5.8 million. Compare this to the total for all other (non-religious) wars – 193 million from fourteen wars (avg. 13.7 million) and it rapidly becomes clear that so-called “religious” wars are not really more deadly than any other kind. On average, they’re actually much LESS deadly.
But it continues.
Quote:
...and he (Dawkins) goes on like this. Four hundred years ago (once again, in China) thousands of people were massacred because they REFUSED TO GET A HAIRCUT. In a world where people kill for reasons as petty as skin color, poverty, education, and national origin, he appears to believe that a world without religion would be a world without hatred.
For all his obvious intelligence, Professor Dawkins falls victim to the most basic of errors — failing to detect his own bias. The bloodiest wars, like practically every war you can name, were fought for more tangible reasons than theological differences of opinion. Some are fought for territory, or national sovereignty. Some are fought for natural resources, such as gold, slaves, and yes, oil. In fact, the bloodiest wars have always been fought, and continue to be fought, for REAL ESTATE. In all of the so-called religious wars, religion has merely been a very easy way to tell the two sides apart.
religion is about our direct and intimate relationship with the Creator.
of course the self is involved.
I didn't say self wasn't involved.
Quote:
how can you take about marriage if you take yourself out of the relationship?
If you base your truth on seeking the truth, and not self, then the holy spirit will guide you via the word.
Quote:
it is simply empty words if you are not involved at a deeply personal level.
You are inevidably involved in a deeply intimate relationship if you are saved. The second deep relationship, modeled by the first, is...
The process of the man and woman coming together in Gods covenant of marriage is understood by the ultimate Bride & Groom coming together. The reconciliation of the bride (us, the church) coming together with the groom (Jesus Christ).
if it's just a bunch of theory and words without personal involvement, there is no point.
if you distance yourself from the Creator, and you are not only distancing you are removing yourself entirely, then there is no relationship
We were created for a reason: Isaiah 43:7
everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”
Romans 1: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;but became vain in their imaginations,and their foolish heart was darkened..
Sometimes people imagine stuff hypothesize falsehoods like their religion can have errors but still be beneficial.
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Amen! Non-denominational, my foot. That word is meaningless. It's just a word people use when they want to be part of an organized religion but can't decide which one.
i would put it a little different. When a person wants to be social but doesn't want to be held down by any counter intuitive rules. Like me, I am a non denominational bigot and racist. I base the choices of how to deal with certain aspect of human behavior on what the person is doing. White, black, brown, or pink, I don't care. irrational is irrational. Dangerous is dangerous. People call me names when I have to say they are being irrational.
Churches, the same thing. Hanging around people that believe "truth, justice, and liberty for all people." are more important than "me and my own at all cost" just makes sense. so what do you mean when you say I can't decide with group to hang around because they all are too literal about the bible? why is that wrong again?
so what do you mean when you say I can't decide with group to hang around because they all are too literal about the bible? why is that wrong again?
What When people say they go to a "non-denominational Church," what they are really saying is that they attend worship services where the minister teaches their interpretation of what the Bible says. Once he has said a few things they disagree with, they simply find another "non-denominational Church" to attend. If they were to bounce around from one Methodist Church to another Methodist Church, the doctrines would remain more constant. But in a non-denominational church, the minister is entirely free to pronounce his own opinions as the "correct" interpretation of scripture.
But, we're off topic. Can we get back to the point of the OP, please?
If you base your truth on seeking the truth, and not self, then the holy spirit will guide you via the word.
You are still flippin' clueless. You should obviously choose your religious path based on what you believe is true. I assume you have done so. I know I have. But one of us chose wrong. If it turns out to be me, my life will still have been enriched by having chosen as I did, and I will still have been a better person that I would have been otherwise. Can you say the same? That is what this thread is about.
I think it would be wonderful if there was only one god and one religion. The conflict comes with everyone insisting that their way is the only way and right way. Yes, religious people are often good people, but there is the flip side to that coin. If there was no religion would Isis still exist? I look at the Amish and how they exclude "the English" based on religious differences. It would be wonderful if religion was second to the fact that we are all of one species, but religion divides as much as it unifies people into a clan mentality.
I love your last paragraph Katzpur. It's a beautiful ideal. Unfortunately I don't see it as the norm.
Personally, I believe that if a religious path provides you with guidance and direction to help you navigate life, if it brings clarity and meaning to how you see the world, and if it makes you a better person, then it's a good path for you to be on, and a good religion. Obviously, if the things it teaches are "true," that makes it even better, but since it's impossible (IMO) for anyone to know for sure that his religion meets that qualification, then there are other things to be considered, too. So what do you think?
Liberal religious people simply let conservative religious people and others fester into Bibliolatries freely. They provide the favorable environment and convenient excuses for Bibliolatries to grow. Most simple lay people want literal truth/ideas, not metaphorical ones.
Happy ignorance and self-contentment (even ones that lower one's desire/need/nature to some selfish evil primate tendencies) can only go so far in being a good thing; especially since they come preloaded with a dark package to "in the darkness, bind them."
You are still flippin' clueless. You should obviously choose your religious path based on what you believe is true. I assume you have done so. I know I have. But one of us chose wrong. If it turns out to be me, my life will still have been enriched by having chosen as I did, and I will still have been a better person that I would have been otherwise. Can you say the same? That is what this thread is about.
If the bible isn't true, then there may or may not be an afterlife.
This is a blink of an eye compared to eternity.
I am not going to get too enmeshed in this wicked world either way
My goal is not to be "a good person" since I cannot meet the criteria of anything which has no definition.
That leaves it up to me to define it and of course, I am going to define it to my benefit
To whatever allows me to do wrong yet not call it wrong, or bad.
So that leaves "being a good person" meaningless as there is no universal definition
Not that it would be my goal anyhow
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should obviously choose your religious path based on what you believe is true. I assume you have done so. I know I have. But one of us chose wrong. If it turns out to be me, my life will still have been enriched by having chosen as I did, and I will still have been a better person that I would have been otherwise. Can you say the same? That is what this thread is about.