If you're not a fundamentalist, what are you?

snapshot · 08-02-2006, 03:43 AM

How can you call yourself a christian if you don't devote yourself to the lifestyle or the Bible?

If you think your salvation is dependent on your belief in Christianity, why haven't you studied your Bible and followed all the directions to a T to become a good christian?

It seems to me that most people today pick and choose what they want to believe when it comes to their religion. People pick out the parts that suit them, and throw away what they think doesn't apply to them.

Don't you think that's a little rash when your eternal salvation is at stake? Shouldn't preparing for the afterlife be the most important part of your life?

This is what I can't comprehend: religious moderates. How can you consider yourself Christian but be unconcerned with the way that you are following your religion? Shouldn't you constantly be checking and double-checking to see if your actions are going to send you to hell?

If the fundamentalists have anything right, they know how important their religion is to them, and how important their salvation is. To me, there's a lot more christians going to hell than they believe. If the Bible really is the Word of God, why do you only choose to believe some parts and throw the other parts away? Do you want to go to Hell just because you're too lazy to follow the religion according to the way it was laid out for you in the Bible?

verklingen · 08-02-2006, 02:00 PM

My short life has seen its fair share of fundamentalism, first as a Catholic and later as a Bhakti. You are right to attack religious moderates for their lack of stringent concern over what they claim to believe, but fundamentalists leave themselves open to just as much scrutiny.

The problem with moderates is that they may know they are acting against the teachings of their beliefs, but they are assured salvation through a Savior. This is their thinking: "I hit my wife tonight, but I can pray and God will forgive me. Further more, Christ died on the cross for me, and I have been promised that His blood shall always purge my sins."

The problem with fundamentalists is that their obsession over rites and protocol often leads them to understate the importance of the message within their beliefs in favor of adhering to decorum.

It's hard to win with religion.

snapshot · 08-02-2006, 02:39 PM

The way I see it, people have been able to choose which parts of their holy scriptures they wish to follow for sometime now. Perhaps only during the Inquisition was the Bible ever fully put to use as the moral standard. But ever since people have realized they have freedom of thought they've been picking and choosing what parts to follow.

This raises the question of, if we're able to reason our way to a better path than those of our holiest books, for what do we need to books at all? Should they not just fall out of fashion and make room for the next novel that comes along and paints a clearer picture?

And this really brings me back to, if we use these books to base our beliefs off of, either directly or indirectly (by reading the books or learning the lessons of the books from a society that chooses to base most of it's societal ethics on) why would we even begin to conceive that belief in God is a requirement?

The largest problem I have with the abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judiasm) is that belief in God is a requirement. Even outside of mainstream religion, people still seem to believe that they must believe in God, which is theoretically impossible, since belief can only happen by convincing yourself of a reality based on evidence. But what evidence do we have? Furthermore, what evidence do we have that our belief is required?

What is at the heart of the issue is people's belief in beliefs. They believe they're supposed to believe in God strictly because they can't prove his existence. But that's not really believing in God. That's believing that the belief in God is somehow more rational than not believing in God. But where does this rationale stem from?

I'd say it's hard to win anytime God is brought up.

JcP · 08-02-2006, 06:27 PM

There is no winning. You are God, among other things (You ARE.)

This wasn't in reply solely to you snapshot, as pertaining to our agreement. I was posting this for others.

Jimmy Coonan · 08-02-2006, 10:04 PM

I'm directing this mostly towards Christianity, since I don't know enough about Islam or Judaism to really say. Being a religious fundamentalist depends, first of all, on the Bible being 100% accurate. If it's not the word of God, then you're not bound to obey it. The Bible has undergone so many changes under the thousands of years of its existence from translation to translation that there are many parts that are in question. And how was it decided, which gospels to include? It wasn't God, it was an arbitrary, entirely human decision by the church fathers in Roman times, and a lot of political factors influenced it.

The words of the Bible contradict themselves so much that being a fundamentalist is an inconsistency in itself. You can't take it all at face value. There is nothing weak or wishy-washy about being a Christian but not believing every word of the Bible, and not believing that the million little rules of the Old Testament matter a bit. Everything important about Christianity is contained in Jesus's message. He basically tells people to be good people, to be good to the people around them and help those in need. There are many stories in the Bible to show that Jesus had absolutely no regard for the laws of the Old Testament. He saved an adulteress, who should have, by the laws of the Old Testament, been stoned to death. He worked on the Sabbath, a serious offense for Jews then. He specifically rejects "an eye for an eye." Jesus didn't take it all as literal truth, so why should we?

snapshot · 08-02-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillarry518

I'm directing this mostly towards Christianity, since I don't know enough about Islam or Judaism to really say. Being a religious fundamentalist depends, first of all, on the Bible being 100% accurate. If it's not the word of God, then you're not bound to obey it. The Bible has undergone so many changes under the thousands of years of its existence from translation to translation that there are many parts that are in question. And how was it decided, which gospels to include? It wasn't God, it was an arbitrary, entirely human decision by the church fathers in Roman times, and a lot of political factors influenced it.

The words of the Bible contradict themselves so much that being a fundamentalist is an inconsistency in itself. You can't take it all at face value. There is nothing weak or wishy-washy about being a Christian but not believing every word of the Bible, and not believing that the million little rules of the Old Testament matter a bit. Everything important about Christianity is contained in Jesus's message. He basically tells people to be good people, to be good to the people around them and help those in need. There are many stories in the Bible to show that Jesus had absolutely no regard for the laws of the Old Testament. He saved an adulteress, who should have, by the laws of the Old Testament, been stoned to death. He worked on the Sabbath, a serious offense for Jews then. He specifically rejects "an eye for an eye." Jesus didn't take it all as literal truth, so why should we?

Why do you take it as literal truth that Jesus existed if you believe nothing else in the book? That's a little convenient.

It seems to me neglectful of reason to assume the parts of the Bible you want to beleive are true while assuming that the parts that don't make sense to you aren't true. Jesus sounds as made up to me as anything else in that book. Why believe in him just because there's a book with his name in it? I don't understand how people can pick and choose what they want to believe without any evidence and still feel comfortable with their decisions. Actually I do know that public affirmation of irrational beliefs helps that out immensely, even when those beliefs have no grounding in reality.

What's so Holy about the Bible if it's so wrong? What's so Holy about Jesus? To believe anything in that book is to just be gullible in my opinion. I don't see what the point in believing in Jesus is. There's nothing wrong with believing in Jesus' message, but there's nothing wrong with believing in 1984's message to the same effect, only we know who actually wrote that book.

There's no good reason to assume Jesus existed in the first place other than a whole bunch of other people believe the same thing.

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 07:52 AM

Furthermore, why give Jesus the upperhand? Why not Buddha, or Krishna, or Hercules? They all have messages that entire civilization have followed. What makes Jesus' message better than any of these guys' messages? Just look at my sig.

Again, I think it's just flatout brainwashing on the part of society to get people to think they are supposed to worship a single figure. Because if Jesus isn't placed on a pedistal then he's really no better than any notable figure in history. Even though there's no such evidence for the existence of Jesus other than the Bible, which may or may not be completely made up.

verklingen · 08-03-2006, 08:06 AM

^ Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha preach the same message once all the fundementalism has boiled away. JcP's got it down pretty well if you would like to find out more.

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 08:28 AM

To me he doesn't offer anything except a visceral response to other people's intelligent questions. And that much is based on his semantic arguments, saying that God is everything, you are apart of everything, and that 'God is you'. He thinks he's making logical sense (but won't admit it) even where there is a presupposition that God actually exists, or that God means something more than just "everything" when there's no logical basis for saying that.

He basically bastardized the english language in my opinion, using logic to his own ends and using his own rules as he sees fit. example: Logically if God is everything, then I am God and I am you, and we are God. Ok, now use logic to prove that God exists. Oh well logic isn't good enough now that you ask me to do that. Ok, you pick and choose when you want to use logic.

It's bullshit.

To me "everything" isn't something you worship, it's something you observe and study in awe. God is on the same level as anything else. It's no more important than lima beans, which may be important, but the inherent value is still subjective. We are lima beans, all is lima, you are lima, it makes no difference. So what? I got more out of I <3 Huckabees with the white sheet analogy.

verklingen · 08-03-2006, 08:38 AM

^ Telling you to ask JcP was more a joke than anything, I'm well aware of you guys' exchanges. I understand his worldview, and am in agreement with it: yet I also agree that his methods leave something to be desired. I think words/poetry can be used to teach about Love, and can furthermore be used to convey love.

But what I was getting at is that most prominent religions (I don't really know a damn thing about Islam) have at their core a reverence for Love itself. This is God. The feeling we experience by loving is the feeling of relating to God, because God is Love: as I see it, anyway.

Jimmy Coonan · 08-03-2006, 08:41 AM

Well, Jesus existing is a bigger point than, say, whether the Israelites are allowed to eat locusts or not or any of the other minutia that makes up most of the Old Testament. If the Bible's right about anything, it's right about that. I'm not saying I believe in it, necessarily, I don't know what I think, I'm just trying to explain why I think Christian fundamentalists have it wrong theologically and people with a more liberal take have it right.

Jesus states that his teachings overrule the Old Testament, and he demonstrates this, many times, through his actions. He threw out the Old Testament. It doesn't matter if the stories in it really happened or not, even if it's all 100% true, his teachings override that. But fundamentalists still cling to it, and point to its laws as justification for their own harsh, intolerant beliefs.

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 08:47 AM

Have you ever said, "I've fallen in God" or "I God you."?

I think if you're going to talk about love you should talk about it as love. What's the point in saying a loaded word like "God". That verbal connect seems to open up the door to the illogical in more way than one, such as the quotations in the beginning of this post.

It'd be great if you started a religion all about love and made it as clear as possible. I think saying God is Love and Love is God is about as confusing and ambiguous as you can get. If you want your explainations to be muddy and unclear, use words like those if you want to seem like you know what you're talking about.

It's my opinion that people use those words for the same reason they curse. They can't think of a better word at the time. Some people go about cussing their whole lives because they never thought that any more thought had to be put into conversation.

tbd

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillarry518

Well, Jesus existing is a bigger point than, say, whether the Israelites are allowed to eat locusts or not or any of the other minutia that makes up most of the Old Testament. If the Bible's right about anything, it's right about that. I'm not saying I believe in it, necessarily, I don't know what I think, I'm just trying to explain why I think Christian fundamentalists have it wrong theologically and people with a more liberal take have it right.

Jesus states that his teachings overrule the Old Testament, and he demonstrates this, many times, through his actions. He threw out the Old Testament. It doesn't matter if the stories in it really happened or not, even if it's all 100% true, his teachings override that. But fundamentalists still cling to it, and point to its laws as justification for their own harsh, intolerant beliefs.

What's the difference in saying "I don't know what I believe" and "I don't believe in any of that right now"?

verklingen · 08-03-2006, 09:08 AM

The thing is, what the ancients refered to as "God" is indeed no different from the concept of love taken to an absolute level. Love is love, but God is absolute love. The Sanskrit krishna or, more specifically, krsta, from which the Greek term christos is derived, litteraly means "all-attractive." In other words, the ancients revered the force of Love and anthropromorphised -- as humans are wont to do -- the concept into various deities; the absolute of which (God) is considered to be absolute Love.

These concepts (God and love) were interchangable in antiquity. It is only in more modern times when people take the stories which have grown around these concepts too seriously that equating God with a term such as Love causes any kind of logical paradox. They are in fact one and the same. The passage of time has only served to water down the original meaning.

OldMan&TheWeed · 08-03-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snapshot

It seems to me that most people today pick and choose what they want to believe when it comes to their religion. People pick out the parts that suit them, and throw away what they think doesn't apply to them.

The world would be a better place if belivers did not pick and choose among parts of the Bible.

KILL THE DREAMERS
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

KILL DISRESPECTFUL KIDS
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:12)

KILL PEOPLE WHO DON'T GO TO CHURCH
“Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 31:14-15)

KILL ALL HOMOSEXUALS
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

KILL THE BABIES AND RAPE THE WOMEN
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 09:23 AM

To me that says, only in more recent times have people begun to evolve their sense of what is love and what is god. The key word is of course evolve. If I wanted to go back to the antiquated form of what we used to call black people, do you think it would be accepted?

It's almost the same thing here. God and love, though they may have meant the same thing thousands of years ago, mean two very different things today, at least literally. People may try to equate the two, and they may even do a good job. But only after explicitly stating that nothing else is meant of God except love. Then comes in the "God is all, therefore love is all and God is love." To me that's a logical fallacy used to undermine the original meanings.

The passage of time may have watered down the original meaning but did it water down love itself?

What I'm against is using the word God in order to be ambiguous. It's widely known that there are multiple meanings for love and multiple meanings for God. And that fewer of those meanings coincide with each other in this day and age. To me when people use Love and God as the same word they are deliberately trying to be ambiguous because they can find no better way to get people understand them. I think that it's more just a form of laziness than enlightened thinking.

It may have worked 2000 years ago, but it doesn't work today. People have "evolved".

verklingen · 08-03-2006, 09:37 AM

^ If people formerly understood something which they cannot understand now, I fail to see any evolution having taken place.

I'm not trying to convert you to any way of thinking: you're fine at thinking on your own! God and love only mean different things today because of anthropomorphized stories which were sensationalized to convert others to the dogma from which such stories have sprung and trying to prove that one peoples' stories about love are better than another peoples': whether either party understands that their stories are actually about love or not.

If these stories lead away from the original meaning rather than expounding upon the original meaning, it can be said that man's spiritual understanding has taken a hard turn down the path of devolution.

JcP · 08-03-2006, 09:40 AM

the debate going on right now doesn't seem to be about God, but semantics.

God is a word used to describe a concept. Love is a word used to describe, in my opinion, the same concept (once you realize that your creator is love, imo).

If you want to call God "Pumpernickel" you have every right to. The issue is only an issue because some people have externalized the concept of creation. There are some who choose to see God as a man in the sky, or whatever.

Jesus, Buddha, Krishna...I'd go so far as to say they are all the same person, just different bodies. And that person can also be you if you choose it.

Names are given to you by others in an act of control...also a little bit of ease because in the society we as a collective have chosen, we need them.

Love is the reason you're alive. It's your creator. So why is it so difficult to then say "Love is God...Love IS." for some? I'm curious.

snapshot · 08-03-2006, 09:41 AM

My point on the evolution was, if the meanings have not evolved but the words have, why have not the words that express those meanings (when the words become bastardized with other meanings).

It doesn't get more confusing than that. I'll keep that but start over for clarity's sake.

If God used to mean the greatest love and vice versa, then why haven't the words evolved? God now means so much more than just love. It means old man in the sky, creator, and when we hear the word God, most of us don't equate it with love.

There should either be a new word, or a conglomeration of words to express the same meaning if the original words don't do it justice. I think it's because people are so attached to the word "God" because it has such powerful connotations, and I think that is particularly irresponsible. Use another word or use multiple words, just don't be ambiguous and use God because it is such a powerful word.

boldened for latest jcp response

JcP · 08-03-2006, 09:49 AM

Words are not powerful. You make them powerful by your choice.

G.O.D. is three symbols put together to form the sound "God." You then attach your personal belief constructs to that sound to describe your creator. You then judge this sound as so important it becomes so powerful it is a stand alone concept. At least that's how it seems from this side of the lake.

The only thing giving that word power is yourself. It is an abstract concept used as a placeholder (for some) for the unknown. For things they cannot seem to find their answers for.

I write on these boards to point out that love (also an ambiguous sequence of symbols) is the sound used by english speaking people to describe many variations of a theme, one of which happens to be sex.

Your creator is your mother and your father's love for one another. And that love is now in you. If you choose it you continue the line of love. If you don't, then you don't.

God is Love for me because Love is the only thing I know. It's the only reason I'm here. And if that isn't the very definition of the sound "God", then please help me out.

08-02-2006, 03:43 AM	#1 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	If you're not a fundamentalist, what are you? How can you call yourself a christian if you don't devote yourself to the lifestyle or the Bible? If you think your salvation is dependent on your belief in Christianity, why haven't you studied your Bible and followed all the directions to a T to become a good christian? It seems to me that most people today pick and choose what they want to believe when it comes to their religion. People pick out the parts that suit them, and throw away what they think doesn't apply to them. Don't you think that's a little rash when your eternal salvation is at stake? Shouldn't preparing for the afterlife be the most important part of your life? This is what I can't comprehend: religious moderates. How can you consider yourself Christian but be unconcerned with the way that you are following your religion? Shouldn't you constantly be checking and double-checking to see if your actions are going to send you to hell? If the fundamentalists have anything right, they know how important their religion is to them, and how important their salvation is. To me, there's a lot more christians going to hell than they believe. If the Bible really is the Word of God, why do you only choose to believe some parts and throw the other parts away? Do you want to go to Hell just because you're too lazy to follow the religion according to the way it was laid out for you in the Bible? __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-02-2006, 02:00 PM	#2 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	My short life has seen its fair share of fundamentalism, first as a Catholic and later as a Bhakti. You are right to attack religious moderates for their lack of stringent concern over what they claim to believe, but fundamentalists leave themselves open to just as much scrutiny. The problem with moderates is that they may know they are acting against the teachings of their beliefs, but they are assured salvation through a Savior. This is their thinking: "I hit my wife tonight, but I can pray and God will forgive me. Further more, Christ died on the cross for me, and I have been promised that His blood shall always purge my sins." The problem with fundamentalists is that their obsession over rites and protocol often leads them to understate the importance of the message within their beliefs in favor of adhering to decorum. It's hard to win with religion. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

08-02-2006, 02:39 PM	#3 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	The way I see it, people have been able to choose which parts of their holy scriptures they wish to follow for sometime now. Perhaps only during the Inquisition was the Bible ever fully put to use as the moral standard. But ever since people have realized they have freedom of thought they've been picking and choosing what parts to follow. This raises the question of, if we're able to reason our way to a better path than those of our holiest books, for what do we need to books at all? Should they not just fall out of fashion and make room for the next novel that comes along and paints a clearer picture? And this really brings me back to, if we use these books to base our beliefs off of, either directly or indirectly (by reading the books or learning the lessons of the books from a society that chooses to base most of it's societal ethics on) why would we even begin to conceive that belief in God is a requirement? The largest problem I have with the abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judiasm) is that belief in God is a requirement. Even outside of mainstream religion, people still seem to believe that they must believe in God, which is theoretically impossible, since belief can only happen by convincing yourself of a reality based on evidence. But what evidence do we have? Furthermore, what evidence do we have that our belief is required? What is at the heart of the issue is people's belief in beliefs. They believe they're supposed to believe in God strictly because they can't prove his existence. But that's not really believing in God. That's believing that the belief in God is somehow more rational than not believing in God. But where does this rationale stem from? I'd say it's hard to win anytime God is brought up. __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-03-2006, 07:52 AM	#7 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	Furthermore, why give Jesus the upperhand? Why not Buddha, or Krishna, or Hercules? They all have messages that entire civilization have followed. What makes Jesus' message better than any of these guys' messages? Just look at my sig. Again, I think it's just flatout brainwashing on the part of society to get people to think they are supposed to worship a single figure. Because if Jesus isn't placed on a pedistal then he's really no better than any notable figure in history. Even though there's no such evidence for the existence of Jesus other than the Bible, which may or may not be completely made up. __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-03-2006, 08:06 AM	#8 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	^ Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha preach the same message once all the fundementalism has boiled away. JcP's got it down pretty well if you would like to find out more. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

08-02-2006, 06:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
JcP Arigatogozaimashita Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: hopefully with a hot 22 year old Posts: 4,471 Thanks: 142 Thanked 765 Times in 471 Posts	There is no winning. You are God, among other things (You ARE.) This wasn't in reply solely to you snapshot, as pertaining to our agreement. I was posting this for others.

08-02-2006, 10:04 PM	#5 (permalink)
Jimmy Coonan Old School Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,844 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 81 Thanked 122 Times in 87 Posts	I'm directing this mostly towards Christianity, since I don't know enough about Islam or Judaism to really say. Being a religious fundamentalist depends, first of all, on the Bible being 100% accurate. If it's not the word of God, then you're not bound to obey it. The Bible has undergone so many changes under the thousands of years of its existence from translation to translation that there are many parts that are in question. And how was it decided, which gospels to include? It wasn't God, it was an arbitrary, entirely human decision by the church fathers in Roman times, and a lot of political factors influenced it. The words of the Bible contradict themselves so much that being a fundamentalist is an inconsistency in itself. You can't take it all at face value. There is nothing weak or wishy-washy about being a Christian but not believing every word of the Bible, and not believing that the million little rules of the Old Testament matter a bit. Everything important about Christianity is contained in Jesus's message. He basically tells people to be good people, to be good to the people around them and help those in need. There are many stories in the Bible to show that Jesus had absolutely no regard for the laws of the Old Testament. He saved an adulteress, who should have, by the laws of the Old Testament, been stoned to death. He worked on the Sabbath, a serious offense for Jews then. He specifically rejects "an eye for an eye." Jesus didn't take it all as literal truth, so why should we?

08-03-2006, 08:28 AM	#9 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	To me he doesn't offer anything except a visceral response to other people's intelligent questions. And that much is based on his semantic arguments, saying that God is everything, you are apart of everything, and that 'God is you'. He thinks he's making logical sense (but won't admit it) even where there is a presupposition that God actually exists, or that God means something more than just "everything" when there's no logical basis for saying that. He basically bastardized the english language in my opinion, using logic to his own ends and using his own rules as he sees fit. example: Logically if God is everything, then I am God and I am you, and we are God. Ok, now use logic to prove that God exists. Oh well logic isn't good enough now that you ask me to do that. Ok, you pick and choose when you want to use logic. It's bullshit. To me "everything" isn't something you worship, it's something you observe and study in awe. God is on the same level as anything else. It's no more important than lima beans, which may be important, but the inherent value is still subjective. We are lima beans, all is lima, you are lima, it makes no difference. So what? I got more out of I <3 Huckabees with the white sheet analogy. __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-03-2006, 08:38 AM	#10 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	^ Telling you to ask JcP was more a joke than anything, I'm well aware of you guys' exchanges. I understand his worldview, and am in agreement with it: yet I also agree that his methods leave something to be desired. I think words/poetry can be used to teach about Love, and can furthermore be used to convey love. But what I was getting at is that most prominent religions (I don't really know a damn thing about Islam) have at their core a reverence for Love itself. This is God. The feeling we experience by loving is the feeling of relating to God, because God is Love: as I see it, anyway. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

08-03-2006, 08:41 AM	#11 (permalink)
Jimmy Coonan Old School Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,844 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 81 Thanked 122 Times in 87 Posts	Well, Jesus existing is a bigger point than, say, whether the Israelites are allowed to eat locusts or not or any of the other minutia that makes up most of the Old Testament. If the Bible's right about anything, it's right about that. I'm not saying I believe in it, necessarily, I don't know what I think, I'm just trying to explain why I think Christian fundamentalists have it wrong theologically and people with a more liberal take have it right. Jesus states that his teachings overrule the Old Testament, and he demonstrates this, many times, through his actions. He threw out the Old Testament. It doesn't matter if the stories in it really happened or not, even if it's all 100% true, his teachings override that. But fundamentalists still cling to it, and point to its laws as justification for their own harsh, intolerant beliefs.

08-03-2006, 08:47 AM	#12 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	Have you ever said, "I've fallen in God" or "I God you."? I think if you're going to talk about love you should talk about it as love. What's the point in saying a loaded word like "God". That verbal connect seems to open up the door to the illogical in more way than one, such as the quotations in the beginning of this post. It'd be great if you started a religion all about love and made it as clear as possible. I think saying God is Love and Love is God is about as confusing and ambiguous as you can get. If you want your explainations to be muddy and unclear, use words like those if you want to seem like you know what you're talking about. It's my opinion that people use those words for the same reason they curse. They can't think of a better word at the time. Some people go about cussing their whole lives because they never thought that any more thought had to be put into conversation. tbd __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-03-2006, 09:08 AM	#14 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	The thing is, what the ancients refered to as "God" is indeed no different from the concept of love taken to an absolute level. Love is love, but God is absolute love. The Sanskrit krishna or, more specifically, krsta, from which the Greek term christos is derived, litteraly means "all-attractive." In other words, the ancients revered the force of Love and anthropromorphised -- as humans are wont to do -- the concept into various deities; the absolute of which (God) is considered to be absolute Love. These concepts (God and love) were interchangable in antiquity. It is only in more modern times when people take the stories which have grown around these concepts too seriously that equating God with a term such as Love causes any kind of logical paradox. They are in fact one and the same. The passage of time has only served to water down the original meaning. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

08-03-2006, 09:23 AM	#16 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	To me that says, only in more recent times have people begun to evolve their sense of what is love and what is god. The key word is of course evolve. If I wanted to go back to the antiquated form of what we used to call black people, do you think it would be accepted? It's almost the same thing here. God and love, though they may have meant the same thing thousands of years ago, mean two very different things today, at least literally. People may try to equate the two, and they may even do a good job. But only after explicitly stating that nothing else is meant of God except love. Then comes in the "God is all, therefore love is all and God is love." To me that's a logical fallacy used to undermine the original meanings. The passage of time may have watered down the original meaning but did it water down love itself? What I'm against is using the word God in order to be ambiguous. It's widely known that there are multiple meanings for love and multiple meanings for God. And that fewer of those meanings coincide with each other in this day and age. To me when people use Love and God as the same word they are deliberately trying to be ambiguous because they can find no better way to get people understand them. I think that it's more just a form of laziness than enlightened thinking. It may have worked 2000 years ago, but it doesn't work today. People have "evolved". __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-03-2006, 09:37 AM	#17 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	^ If people formerly understood something which they cannot understand now, I fail to see any evolution having taken place. I'm not trying to convert you to any way of thinking: you're fine at thinking on your own! God and love only mean different things today because of anthropomorphized stories which were sensationalized to convert others to the dogma from which such stories have sprung and trying to prove that one peoples' stories about love are better than another peoples': whether either party understands that their stories are actually about love or not. If these stories lead away from the original meaning rather than expounding upon the original meaning, it can be said that man's spiritual understanding has taken a hard turn down the path of devolution. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

08-03-2006, 09:40 AM	#18 (permalink)
JcP Arigatogozaimashita Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: hopefully with a hot 22 year old Posts: 4,471 Thanks: 142 Thanked 765 Times in 471 Posts	the debate going on right now doesn't seem to be about God, but semantics. God is a word used to describe a concept. Love is a word used to describe, in my opinion, the same concept (once you realize that your creator is love, imo). If you want to call God "Pumpernickel" you have every right to. The issue is only an issue because some people have externalized the concept of creation. There are some who choose to see God as a man in the sky, or whatever. Jesus, Buddha, Krishna...I'd go so far as to say they are all the same person, just different bodies. And that person can also be you if you choose it. Names are given to you by others in an act of control...also a little bit of ease because in the society we as a collective have chosen, we need them. Love is the reason you're alive. It's your creator. So why is it so difficult to then say "Love is God...Love IS." for some? I'm curious.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

08-03-2006, 09:41 AM	#19 (permalink)
snapshot no custom. customize Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The unOriginal Rorschach. Posts: 19,305 Thanks: 15 Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts	My point on the evolution was, if the meanings have not evolved but the words have, why have not the words that express those meanings (when the words become bastardized with other meanings). It doesn't get more confusing than that. I'll keep that but start over for clarity's sake. If God used to mean the greatest love and vice versa, then why haven't the words evolved? God now means so much more than just love. It means old man in the sky, creator, and when we hear the word God, most of us don't equate it with love. There should either be a new word, or a conglomeration of words to express the same meaning if the original words don't do it justice. I think it's because people are so attached to the word "God" because it has such powerful connotations, and I think that is particularly irresponsible. Use another word or use multiple words, just don't be ambiguous and use God because it is such a powerful word. boldened for latest jcp response __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -Richard Dawkins

08-03-2006, 09:49 AM	#20 (permalink)
JcP Arigatogozaimashita Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: hopefully with a hot 22 year old Posts: 4,471 Thanks: 142 Thanked 765 Times in 471 Posts	Words are not powerful. You make them powerful by your choice. G.O.D. is three symbols put together to form the sound "God." You then attach your personal belief constructs to that sound to describe your creator. You then judge this sound as so important it becomes so powerful it is a stand alone concept. At least that's how it seems from this side of the lake. The only thing giving that word power is yourself. It is an abstract concept used as a placeholder (for some) for the unknown. For things they cannot seem to find their answers for. I write on these boards to point out that love (also an ambiguous sequence of symbols) is the sound used by english speaking people to describe many variations of a theme, one of which happens to be sex. Your creator is your mother and your father's love for one another. And that love is now in you. If you choose it you continue the line of love. If you don't, then you don't. God is Love for me because Love is the only thing I know. It's the only reason I'm here. And if that isn't the very definition of the sound "God", then please help me out.