What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Lets discuss beliefs

  • Thread starter Treaqum
  • Start date
  • #281
Luis,
I was exactly like you when I was 16..
I basically ignored all religion through my entire teens and 20's..
on the rare occasions I did think about it, it was only to think of how wrong it all must be..
for example, I know for a fact that evolution is real and creationism is pure fiction..I still believe that, and always will.
because to me, which is more likely to be true? the entire fossil record of the planet, or a book?
if the planet contradicts the book, which is more likely to be right?
no contest..reality (the planet) is the truth and the book is fiction..no problem.
so it follows that the bible is partly fiction..no problem, I can accept that.

My parents sent my sister and I to Sunday school when we kids..like 4 or 5 years old.
I was never clear why since we never went to church otherwise..
I guess they just wanted us to get a basic underlying feel of our "cultural faith", even if they themselves werent "practicing"..
and other than Sunday school, I had no further religious teaching at all..which suited me fine.
I remember saying, just a few years ago, that "the LACK of religion while growing up was one of the greatest gifts my parents gave to me"
because I felt all superior because I didnt have any religious "baggage"..which presumably made me more "open minded" right?
now..im gratefull my parents gave me just that little nudge of Christian teaching..today I feel like it was a seed that was planted and laid dormant for 30 years..

So now im 36..
im engaged to a wondefull Woman who happens to be a Christian..
it didnt bother me that She was a Christian and I wasnt, because I wasnt actively AGAINST religion in general, I had no real problems with it..it just "wasnt for me."
So Deb always knew I was "a skeptic"..we talked about religion a lot in our early dating years..(we dated 5 years before we got engaged)
So she asked me to read a few books that were written with skeptics in mind.
so I said "sure"! because im open-minded right? ;)

The first book was "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.
its a book that looks at Jesus from the perspective of a skeptic, a historian, an archaeoligist..can we prove Jesus was real and was who he claimed to be by looking at historical evidence alone? good book!
it makes a good case for the reality of Jesus *without* relying on just faith alone..

the second book is excellent! I am really getting a lot out of it.
it is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.

(Lewis is best known as the writer of the Narnia Chronicles, he was a devout athiest for many years, he went to College with JRR Tolkein and was one of his closest friends..it was through many discussions, over many years, on the subject of religion with Tolkien and others while they were students and professors at Oxford that led Lewis to eventually become a devout Christian..after being an unshakable athiest as a younger man!)

So..the BBC asked Lewis to do a series of radio talks to the British public during WWII on the subject of Christianity, to try to explain basic faith to the war-weary public.
Those radio talks are gathered together to make up the book "Mere Christianity"
Lewis has several interesting theorys on WHY Christianity must be real, based only on human nature..going back to a very primal level. He starts it all out very simply, basically giving a simple theory that proves the existance of God!
its very convincing..I cant find anything to dispute it.
then he goes on to more and more complicated matters..but all the while still using the tone of someone talking to a skeptic..
A quote on the back of the book says
"C.S. Lewis is the ideal persuader for the half-convinced, for the good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way."
that was SO me!!
I kept convincing myself I was too smart to believe in all that nonsense!
but the more I read and learn, and I have been going to church, the more sense it is all making..
im changing, and im liking it!
smile.gif

I can STILL believe in evolution over Creationism..because I can believe that God created life and evolution is his method for letting it change..
I dont have to believe the entire bible is literal fact.
and im fine with that.
some people (Christians) will say I CANT believe that!
but they are just humans..im not required to believe exactly what they believe. everyone has their own unique concept of God, their own unique relationship with God that is unlike anyone else's.. So if my "overall idea" of Christianity doesnt agree with someone else's 100%, then so be it..
the minor details are different among the Christian sects, the main idea is the same.
im not bothering with minor details right now..im just trying to get my mind around the big picture..
the important thing is just trying to get to know God..another thing Lewis says is "if this analogy doesnt work for you, discard it"
go with what makes sense to you..

and another big bonus of that idea for me is I dont HAVE to be like the extreme "religious right" wackos!
I cant stand them..the people who kill abortion doctors "in the name of God"..
or the people who think THEIR persoal moral beliefs should be LAWS that everyone has to accept..grrrrrr..
(im very strongly pro-gay rights, something a "Christian isnt supposed to believe in"..yeah right..since when is Jesus a big fan of opression? ;)
for years I disliked ALL of Christianity because of those kinds of extremists..
well, I discovered most Christians are not those people at all!
(just like the ideas of the 911 terrorists dont even remotely represent the truth about Islam.)
So that was a big help to me..I can ignore certain "Christians" if I choose!! its ok to think they are wacked!
I CAN be a Christian, have a real relationship with God, and I dont HAVE to agree with all those humans!
woo hoo!
smile.gif

that was quite a lightning-bolt for me..freed up my mind a lot.

I would HIGHLY recommend "Mere Christianity" to anyone..
its the first book that has really helped me make sense of religion..
I feel like I hit the "pause" button at age 5 in Sunday school, skipped 30 years, and am just now "starting" again..
im just starting to learn..
and "starting to believe" is MUCH more intellectually challenging than NOT believing in religion was!
I think there is FAR more to learn over on this side..
Scot
 
  • #282
To [)]: I tried to write within the quote, as I do in a PM and it didn't work out too well. Glad I answered the one I wasn't clear about. That reminds me too much of work. Someone would ask me a question and before I get my act together with an intelligent answer - they figure it out. Anyways...

I'm not sure if you are referring to the canon or not, but I will assume so and answer accordingly. From what I have read, the O.T. was determined by several Jewish rabbis in 90 AD, at the Council Of Jamnia.

The N.T. was an ongoing process for almost 3 centuries, argued over and haggled with, by many people. Different church fathers at different times and places, had differing lists of book - not radically different ones, but a little less than 90 %. Apparently what motivated all that was some Bishop (whose name escapes me) was a bit off the wall and came up with some heretical teachings. So people decided it was high time that they get together and put together a canon of the N.T.

It is well known that we have no original manuscripts and there are different documents out there (Syriac, Septuaigint, and a few more). None of them are in perfect agreement. And of course that bothers a lot of people. It doesn't bother me because none of what is different or in dispute has anything to do with the very basic tenets of Christianity - or Jewish theology. And eveytime someone discovers some ancient parchment buried somewhere (like the Deads Sea Scrolls), it confirms what we have today. Again, looking at the big picture, the trees, as it were, nothing has changed. Nothing is contradictory. Nothing is inconsistent.

To be sure, humans, with all their failings, have put the Old & New testaments together. And just like the people who have put the modern translations together, in spite of and because of their limitations, they pray for wisdom and guidance. They also get together with other people for checks and balances to guard against corruption, personal biases, etc... This is where trust comes into play - trust that God is somehow guiding these people to produce a document that accurately conveys what God wants. So we trust the Jews at Jamnia, the Christians at Nicea, and the highly educated folks of differing theological backgrounds, to reflect what God wants.

The Bible is clear on the subject of "false teachers" trying to get people with "itchy ears" to be lured away from the truth. Ya don't need much. All you need is a charismatic individual with differing theology, combined with people who have just enough Biblical knowledge to be dangerous and confused, along with hurt and disillusionment. That formula produces an instant cult (Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc...)

The Bible is also clear on "testing the spirits". If it doesn't come true, it isn't from God. If it contradicts the Bible - it doesn't hold water. I would consider an individual like Billy Graham to be a modern day prophet. There are others out there and there are charlatons as well. You best believe that a person like Billy Graham, with all that influence and respect, prays a lot and reads a lot, and tries to be as blameless before us all as he can be.

I can't say much about God speaking in an audible voice, because I have never heard one. The bible speaks of a small, still voice - perhaps the holy Spirit, giving someone "a word from the Lord". Others pseak about perceiving an "impression" from God. Now this I can relate to. But any Christian worth their salt will pray for discernment as to whether it is from God, satan, or from one's own thoughts. That brings us back to "testing the spirits". The Bible is clear that anybody claiming to have "a word from the Lord" had better have some checks and balances in place before proclaiming anything.

Did I answer your questions? If not, feel free to PM me and we can banter on the side.

For those who are debating who killed Jesus: On a strictly human level, the Jewish leaders at the time very much wanted to do so, but were prohibited by their law. That is why they appealed to and manipulated the The political leaders (Herod & Pilate). Technically, Pilate made the human decision. Again, the Bible is clear that the responsibilty for the crucifixion was soley on Jesus. He specifically told Pilate that Pilate had no authority over Him, other than what God allowed. Jesus further said that He voluntarily laid his life down. This was all part of the plan that He talked about during His ministry. God sent His Son as a sacrifice, in order to save all humanity, if they put their faith in Him. Nothing is cryptic here. Read it for yourselves. The only thing required is a heart-felt faith.
 
  • #283
[b said:
Quote[/b] (scottychaos @ Mar. 28 2005,5:20)]So she asked me to read a few books that were written with skeptics in mind. so I said "sure"! because im open-minded right? ;)
Out of curiosity (and playing devil's advocate again), have you read any similar books "for skeptics and people on the fence" describing other major religions? If so, how did they sound to you? If not, what happens if they're equally convincing?

Many religions contain parallel messages (they come from the same roots, they agree on basic human rights in ways that intuitively make sense to us, etc.), but many of them also are entirely conflicting. Look at some of the eastern religions vs. some of the western ones on their basic view of reality itself.

If you read similar excellent books, whilst trying to put the last book you read out of your mind temporarily, and they all turned out to be extremely persuasive and you could find yourself agreeing with all of them on their own merit... well, how would you personally reconcile that? I guess gut instinct would probably be the last thing you have to go on? Or you'd just consider them all different pieces of the puzzle like a lot of people do?

Not to question the strength of your beliefs, but in general I'm convinced that a lot of Americans are christian simply because we're in a primarily christian environment. If some of those people had been born in a muslim environment, they'd be muslim. They're bombarded with arguments that sound extremely convincing from one religion, and hear almost nothing from the others. They haven't been exposed, or exposed themselves, to the equally convincing arguments from those other places, either because they feel their belief systems are "finished", or because they hear how silly those other beliefs are from the authority figures in their own churches and don't bother.

When it comes down to it, for many of them they believe what they believe because they just happened to read one book first rather than another. It was the appeal to the part of them that needs to believe they aren't alone that was important.

It's weird how in this forum it feels like there's this christian-athiest polarity... as if those are the only two options available to us. All part of being in a christian country I guess.

[b said:
Quote[/b] (jimscott @ Mar. 28 2005,5:47)]Did I answer your questions? If not, feel free to PM me and we can banter on the side.
I think so. Like I said, I was going through hypotheticals.
 
  • #284
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]ok no offense alpha but if thats the way you think then constantine, julius ceasar, tiberius, nero, the assiarians, confucius, the tokogawa clan, etc... are all not historical facts, you might believe they existed but they are not facts.
I really don't know what the situation is with those people but I can't call something a historical fact with just the things you've shown me. Why?
Tacitus- if the date of his birth is right, he was BORN about 25 years after jesus was supposed to have died, so he must have gotten his information from someone else. Considering that myths and legends about now (even more so back then), it wouldn't be surprising at all that his source might have been mistaken.
also the way he said it... "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea" I don't know his writing style or anything but for all I know he was just writing like people today do. That isn't saying christ was a historical fact, that is saying christianity is named after christ who died in the hands of...
Pliny the Younger- born even later than tacitus, and he said:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath
that's just describing christianity. If you really want to you can interpret it as saying that christ who was a real person was treated as a god but that's stretching it.
Josephus-
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared
... that's just like the bible! I don't see why I should believe that he thought jesus was a historical fact. Just like I shouldn't believe that "on the third day he appeared... restored to life" is fact.
the Babylonian Talmud- the dates are when it was compiled... so that really doesn't mean anything... ok, if hanged and if yeshu mean what they say there, then that's pretty good.
Lucian- born 120 AD, same as Pliny the Younger.
so what do we have? a couple of bad sources and one talmud which I don't really know anything about so I can't say.
Not enough for me to say jesus was a historical fact.
 
  • #285
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Not to question the strength of your beliefs, but in general I'm convinced that a lot of Americans are christian simply because we're in a primarily christian environment. If some of those people had been born in a muslim environment, they'd be muslim. They're bombarded with arguments that sound extremely convincing from one religion, and hear almost nothing from the others. They haven't been exposed, or exposed themselves, to the equally convincing arguments from those other places, either because they feel their belief systems are "finished", or because they hear how silly those other beliefs are from the authority figures in their own churches and don't bother.

True. We get bombarded from early childhood with certain ideas; the whole public school system has had all religion taken out of it.

Peter
 
  • #286
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I was exactly like you when I was 16..
I basically ignored all religion through my entire teens and 20's..
Maybe you were like me but I'm not like you :p.
I don't ignore religion... I like to talk about it as you all know.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]so it follows that the bible is partly fiction..no problem, I can accept that.
I can't. If I'm going to base my spiritual beliefs on something, I want it to be real and not fiction. If one part is fiction, how much else is fiction? Why would a book inspired by god have any fiction in it?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] I wasnt actively AGAINST religion in general, I had no real problems with it..it just "wasnt for me."
I wouldn't say I'm really AGAINST religion but I am in a way... I'm definately against religion for myself.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]basically giving a simple theory that proves the existance of God!
its very convincing..I cant find anything to dispute it.
Since I don't have that book anywhere close and since it's so simple... can you tell us what the theory is? maybe we can find something to dispute it
smile_m_32.gif

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"C.S. Lewis is the ideal persuader for the half-convinced, for the good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way."
I am DEFINATELY nowhere like that. I'm not even 1/10th convinced nor do I want to be a christian, and my intellect gets on the way of nothing :p
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So if my "overall idea" of Christianity doesnt agree with someone else's 100%, then so be it..
it's not about disagreeing with someone else's, it's about disagreeing with the bible. The bible says adam was created from dust and eve was created from his rib. it also says noah built an ark and got all the land animals there.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]for years I disliked ALL of Christianity because of those kinds of extremists..
well, I discovered most Christians are not those people at all!
I don't dislike the people themselves, I dislike their ideas and why they have those ideas. I have many christian friends and I know the vast majority of christians aren't like those extremists.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I think there is FAR more to learn over on this side..
like?

I'm going to try to read that book some time, but I can't promise it'll be any time soon. I have tons of other things i'm supposed to read first :p want to know how many links I have in my "to do" folder? 35 (and most of them are about science! that should say a lot). other people have also recomended me other books, etc.

And also like I said a while back, I don't believe just because there's no historical evidence or something for some things said in the bible, it's that the mere concept itself doesn't make sense to me. I also can't ignore questions like where god came from, why he created anything, why he created us so we could suffer, why he punishes people FOR ALL ETERNITY (does anyone here get what for all eternity is? I know I don't...), why he doesn't give us good reasons to believe, etc...
 
  • #287
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]True.  We get bombarded from early childhood with certain ideas; the whole public school system has had all religion taken out of it.
since when is public school your whole life?

(darn I'm tired)
 
  • #288
the only real problem i have with christianity is that harcore christians= hardcore republicans, wich wouldnt be a big deal at all exept hardcore republicans= bad for the enviorment
 
  • #289
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Mar. 28 2005,7:21)]the only real problem i have with christianity is that harcore christians= hardcore republicans, wich wouldnt be a big deal at all exept hardcore republicans= bad for the enviorment
Not nescarily(sp), I'm not as hardcore Christian as some but I would definately love to be hardcore(not a fanatic, but on fire for Jesus so to speak). When I am elgible to vote I will definately be Republican, but I definately care about the environment. I do this because the Bible told US(everyone, Christian or not) to do what we like with the earth, it also told us to be wise stewards with what we have been given.

Just so we can clarify, the Bible is either ALL fiction or ALL truth. I say this because it is 98.5 percent textually pure. The other 1 1/2% does not even affect the meaning. They are things like spelling error(the didn't have spellcheck) and grammatical error like periods or commas. The Bible we have now was written by over forty men in a range of about 1600yrs. It was in 3 languages; Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It was also written on 3 continents; Africa, Asia, and Europe. There have been over 5000 DIFFERENT Greek manuscripts with which to compare with.
The council of Jamnia recongnized the 39 books of the Old Testimate as correct according to canon. Josephus(Jewish historian) also indicated the 39 books were recognized.
The Council of Athenasius and the Council of Carthage recognized the 27 books of the New Testament as being canon. Both sections of the Bible refer to the other.
Hope you enjoyed all this stuff, and if you have questions you may have to wait a while cause I'd have to ask my pastor.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Quote
True. We get bombarded from early childhood with certain ideas; the whole public school system has had all religion taken out of it.

since when is public school your whole life?

(darn I'm tired)

In my part of the country it is! When I was in a private school, my life consited of this:Up at 6:30, school starts at 8:30 and ends at 3:00, go home do homework till bedtime.... I was/am a GOOD student and some of my friends would stay up till like 12. Someo of my friends from different schools said it was for the most part the same(unless you rode the bus, then you'd have to be up even earlier!). Anyway that was off the subject!!!! RANDOMNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(hmm you could blame that on some of my friends! LOL)
 
  • #290
[b said:
Quote[/b] (endparenthesis @ Mar. 28 2005,11:58)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
So she asked me to read a few books that were written with skeptics in mind. so I said "sure"! because im open-minded right? ;)
Out of curiosity (and playing devil's advocate again), have you read any similar books "for skeptics and people on the fence" describing other major religions? If so, how did they sound to you? If not, what happens if they're equally convincing?

yes I have..
im a huge fan of the Dali Lama,
his religion's ideas are amazing, and I can believe them fully..
I dont think any one religion has to flatly oppose all others..
they all SAY they do, but I think thats only because you have to believe your religion is right and the others are wrong..otherwise you would have to admit your religion *might not* be true..thats a leap no religion can afford to make, and Christianity is especially against "allowing" other religions to maybe be right too..
but im not.
im part Scottish and part Seneca Indian..very different cultures. I can believe in aspects of several different religions.
they all have bits of truth in them..some have more truth than others probably.
and yes, Im more likely to be a Christian just because I was born into a christian culture..but so what?
if I was born in Pakistan I would very likely be Muslim..
I dont really see the problem with that idea..
its just logic..people born into Jewish familys are likely to become Jewish..so what?
I dont see the point to arguing that..



[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]so it follows that the bible is partly fiction..no problem, I can accept that.
I can't. If I'm going to base my spiritual beliefs on something, I want it to be real and not fiction. If one part is fiction, how much else is fiction? Why would a book inspired by god have any fiction in it?

thats my big "problem" with the bible too..
but I have accepted that some of it myth, story, allagory..
Noah's ark and creationism being the biggies.
I dont think the entire bible is MEANT to be the literal words of God..we already know that much of it was WRITTEN by humans already..some of the things in there are human's attempting to explain some big mysteries..and they got it wrong.


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]basically giving a simple theory that proves the existance of God!
its very convincing..I cant find anything to dispute it.
Since I don't have that book anywhere close and since it's so simple... can you tell us what the theory is? maybe we can find something to dispute it
smile_m_32.gif

well rather than try to explain it myself, it would be far better to just have Mr. Lewis explain it in his own words.

<span style='color:blue'>"Everyone has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this:

"How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" - "That's my seat, I was there first" - "Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm" - "Why should you shove in first?" - "Give me a bit of your orange; I gave you a bit of mine" - "Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the piece of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of laws but there is only one which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has... That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which... he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

I know that some people say that the idea of a Law of nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true... If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will strike him will be how very alike they are to each other and to our own.
Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. "But the most remarkable thing is this.  Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later.  He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson.  A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one.  But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong -- in other words, if there is no Law of Nature -- what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one?  Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

"It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong.  People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not just a matter of taste or opinion any more than the multiplication table.  Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this.  None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature.  If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them.  They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them.  And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

"I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say.  I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else.  I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people.  There may be all sorts of excuses for us.

"That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired.  That slightly shady business about the money -- the one you have almost forgotten -- came when you were very hard up. ... And as for your behavior to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it -- and who the dickens am I , anyway?  I am just the same.  That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm.

"The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses.  The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature.  If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?  The truth is, we believe in decency so much -- we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so -- that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.  For you notice it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations.  It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

"These, then, are the two points I wanted to make.  First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.  Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.  They know the Law of Nature; they break it.  These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."</span>
-C.S. Lewis

more here:
http://washington.uwc.edu/about/faculty/widmayer_a/Lewis%20article.htm

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]it's not about disagreeing with someone else's, it's about disagreeing with the bible. The bible says adam was created from dust and eve was created from his rib. it also says noah built an ark and got all the land animals there.

yeah, I know..I dont believe any of that either..
you dont have to. you dont HAVE to believe the bible is 100% fact. you are thinking too literally..

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I think there is FAR more to learn over on this side..
like?

like all of creation beyond just the little bit of this planet we can see..
like all of creation beyond our puny 80 years.
like what everything means.
like what happens after we die.
those are very interesting topics, and everyone who has ever lived wants to know the answers..
religions claim they can give you those answers..
and I am starting to belive that maybe they actually can.
 
  • #291
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Mar. 28 2005,6:54)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]True.  We get bombarded from early childhood with certain ideas; the whole public school system has had all religion taken out of it.
since when is public school your whole life?

(darn I'm tired)
Every day I go out I pass multiple churches, christian bookstores, etc. My parents used to take me to church as a kid, but luckily they grew tied of it.

Half the restaurants I go to that aren't part of a chain have christian/patriotic (the two are the same, apparently) items on the walls.

The TV news talks about christianity quite frequently... the newspaper has a section devoted to religion (christian matters, sprinkled lightly with other religions so no one complains).

I've had strangers come up to me out of nowhere intending to convert me. The last time I went to a county fair I walked by a place where kids (part of a church) were doing skits from the bible. The person running the show practically harassed the person I was with.

I go to a forum or two where almost all of the members are christian and they make it quite known in a lot of their posts.

Etc etc.

Oddly public school was one of the few havens I had from it.
smile.gif


Never in my life have I felt like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism (not a religion, yada yada), Hinduism, or anything else have been pushed on me. Any time I wanted to learn about them I had to seek them out. They were never thrown at me without my consent.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

This is absolutely a Christian society.
 
  • #292
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]some of the things in there are human's attempting to explain some big mysteries..and they got it wrong.
and the big difference between us is that I think the whole bible is just that.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson.
that's what kids do.
Right and wrong are culturally imposed. for it to be culturally imposed, there has to be a culture. for there to be a culture, there has to be right and wrong. it's very simple actually.
 
  • #293
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Mar. 28 2005,2:44)]
that's what kids do.
Right and wrong are culturally imposed. for it to be culturally imposed, there has to be a culture. for there to be a culture, there has to be right and wrong. it's very simple actually.
Lewis's point is that it is not culturally imposed..
it comes from more than culture..
its something ALL humans understand on a primal level, outside of culture..
its something that is not taught.
there probably wasnt enough in what I quoted to really get the gist of that..you would have to read more to really get the idea..
Scot
 
  • #294
I don't know where you live, here in the Los Angeles area things are the opposite in a way.

Seems like all the "Christian" ideas you have come across came from people who are missing the whole point of the faith. The link between Christianity and Patriotism is in the idea of the "Good American Citizen" who has Sunday School morals, and always supports whatever the country is currently doing.

I agree that these "Christian" ideas get tiring, but don't be judging the whole faith by what a few weak willed apathetic people do.

While it may not seem like Public School is bombarding you with anything, by eliminating any "religion", you introduce atheism or some alternative. Since we are taught certain things as fact, many people accept these things as fact without thought.

Peter
 
  • #295
[b said:
Quote[/b] (scottychaos @ Mar. 28 2005,7:52)]and yes, Im more likely to be a Christian just because I was born into a christian culture..but so what?
if I was born in Pakistan I would very likely be Muslim..
I dont really see the problem with that idea..
its just logic..people born into Jewish familys are likely to become Jewish..so what?
I dont see the point to arguing that..
If one religion teaches eternity in hell and another teaches reincarnation... that's a pretty important detail. One that should be decided on based on more than where you live and who your parents are.

I guess when you define yourself as a Christian you use the term loosely? Or you're a Christian in that you believe Christ is the savior, and the rest you have your own conclusions about? And I'm not saying this disparagingly... I'm somewhat the same way. I can't give my beliefs a label, because I'd rather just say what they are, rather than say "Well, I'm [insert religion], except for this long list of things I don't agree with." It seems like using the label in that case is just asking for confusion more than anything else.

Anyway, about the C.S. Lewis quote.

There's Right and Wrong, and there's right and wrong. Right and Wrong (capitalized) would be a set of morals cosmically enforced that are universal and concrete. Whereas right and wrong (lowercase) would be tools that people use in order to function successfully as a society... ways to gain comfort, trustability, strong personal connections, etc. Confusing the two is a big mistake. Yes, right and wrong must exist if Right and Wrong exist, but Right and Wrong don't have to exist for right and wrong to exist (that may be the most confusing sentence I've ever typed). And if Right and Wrong don't exist, then chances are right and wrong will be mercurial and in some ways arbitrary. Whether expecting fairness is inherent, or if it's just something very useful for coexisting that we've passed on through the generations, there's really no way of knowing. He doesn't seem to be cognisant of this... maybe he is elsewhere in the book.

And I think his views on how humans interact (and the laws of nature and such) are a little naive. Take away everybody's electricity and running water someday and we'll see how interested people are in fairness. If I were to follow the "Laws of Nature", I'd be in prison within a month... he must be talking about a different nature than the one I'm thinking of.

I can't say if selfishness has ever been admired (some "philosophers" like Ayn Rand encourage it)... but it's certainly been rewarded time and time again.

Morality may be one of those chicken/egg scenarios. Nobody really knows if people want to be "right" because it's in their nature, or because they've grown up having it expected of them, and fear the shame that comes with failing to do so.

But I suspect if we found someone who somehow survived in the wild on their own with no real contact with any human beings or other social animals in their lives, we'd see some huge discrepencies in their behavior, and what Lewis claims is universal.
 
  • #296
Luis, you have read Flavius Josephus / Antiquities of the Jews? I'm impressed! I've got that book and haven't completed yet. Mine is in Middle English, soit;s kinda annoying to get through. One of these days...
 
  • #297
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Mar. 28 2005,8:58)]I agree that these "Christian" ideas get tiring, but don't be judging the whole faith by what a few weak willed apathetic people do.

While it may not seem like Public School is bombarding you with anything, by eliminating any "religion", you introduce atheism or some alternative.  Since we are taught certain things as fact, many people accept these things as fact without thought.
I wasn't commenting on the quality of the Christian beliefs I've encountered, just the quantity, and aggressiveness of their presentation. "How Christian" those people were is irrelevant.

But we can skip my subjective, unreliable experience and look at the stats.... which suggest most people in this country are exposed to Christianity far more than any other belief system (regardless of purity).

In school I learned history, math, science, english, art, a few other things. Never atheism. By definition, atheism is still a stance on the state of the spiritual world... I wouldn't give it a place in public schools either. Agnosticism might find its way in there, but I don't think there's really anything harmful about saying, "I don't know."
 
  • #298
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Lewis's point is that it is not culturally imposed
@#$%$#@#$!
L-U-I-S! grr... (lol... no I'm not mad at you, everyone confuses it too)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]it comes from more than culture..
its something ALL humans understand on a primal level, outside of culture..
its something that is not taught.
you mean instinct... ok, no problem. instincts evolve.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Luis, you have read Flavius Josephus / Antiquities of the Jews?
sorry to disappoint you but no. Why do you think so? to tell you the truth I had never heard of it :p
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]While it may not seem like Public School is bombarding you with anything, by eliminating any "religion", you introduce atheism or some alternative.
lack of religion's influence doesn't mean presence of atheism.
 
  • #299
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Mar. 28 2005,9:48)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Lewis's point is that it is not culturally imposed
@#$%$#@#$!
L-U-I-S! grr... (lol... no I'm not mad at you, everyone confuses it too)
He's talking about C.S. Lewis, I think.
smile_n_32.gif
 
  • #300
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Republican, but I definately care about the environment

i know that but it is a fact most elected republican officials put buisness first -housing and development, logging, recreation (hotels)- over any enviormental concerns.
 
Back
Top