[Silver]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
And what makes him anymore qualified to ponficate about life than say any of the ancient Hebrew writers of the Scriptures?

From most of the anti-Christian point of view it seems their main argument regarding the Bible is that it is written by man and man if falliable. Both writers tackle the philisophical life issues.

Is Nietzsche infalliable, or is it just that he doesn't talk about God that makes him more "credible".

Not to start a raging debate or anything, but I find that point of view interesting.

I think the difference is that I can say, "Nietzsche is full of sh!t!" Without worrying about mortally offending someone.

Even the most hardcore adherent to Nietzsche's philosophy can be argued with. He can't fall back on "Hey! Word of God here. Sorry about that."

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Silver
I think the difference is that I can say, "Nietzsche is full of sh!t!" Without worrying about mortally offending someone.

You could "mortally" offend someone who believe's his teachings. So what's the difference there? You're still offending someone (which is not the point I was trying to make).

I'm sure the followers or Neitzsche's teachings would agree with this: but my belief and faith (they have faith too BTW) is not incubent on other's validating it for me. I could careless if someone thinks I'm full of poo because I believe the Scriptures.

Originally posted by Silver
IEven the most hardcore adherent to Nietzsche's philosophy can be argued with. He can't fall back on "Hey! Word of God here. Sorry about that."

I think most "normal" Christians can be argued with too. I think I have said on many occaisions on here that there is a degree of faith in my believeing the Scriptures as inspired by God as orginally transcribed. Those that believe in other philosophies believe them with a degree of faith too, although I'm sure they might deny that.

Anyway...........what was the whole point of this????????

 

[laura]

Originally posted by Lexx D
Ahhh, perfect! How easy it is for you to take things out of context like a 16 year old girl.

what, a 16 year old girl. what are you talking about.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Don't you need to believe in hell to go there?

Sorry, but God saying that if you do not ask forgiveness and live by his rules, you'll be damned to eternal hellfire - kinda harsh rules there buddy. God needs to chill.

But is there really hell if you don't believe in hell? Or heaven?

Isn't the "word of God" simply the "word of man speaking for God"?


I think you can ask the same of Y-bike riders. Will they go to hell for riding this bike? Is not a Y-bike against all that is good and God-like?
Y-bike riders repent!! FSR or single pivot is your ONLY SALVATION!

 

[Lexx D]

I don't have a problem with belief and morals. i do have a problem with the fact that most wars are started by religion.
It's the I'm right your wrong aspect i don't like.
I think they're all worshiping the same god just different interpretaions. Besides the budhist way of enlightment is probably the best way to go.

 

[Tenchiro]

"Hell must be a pretty swell spot, because the guys that invented religion have sure been trying hard to keep everybody else out."
~Al Capone

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
As the 's token fundamental Christian let me add something.

I heard a Christian author say something to the effect, "why get all riled up about what the "world" (ie non-Christians) are doing or not doing? They (the world) don't know (for lack of a better term) know any better so why do we expect them to act like Christians?"

Two things: Personally I think Christians spend WAY TOO MUCH TIME being "activist's" on things like gays and stuff like that. Instead (and this goes with my second point) all that "energy" should be focused on reaching out to those groups and loving them as Jesus loved us.

Second point: who did Jesus get all fired up and mad at? The religious and holier than thou club. Who did they "marginalize" the sick and poor and stuff like that. Who is the "holier than thou" club marginalizing today? Gays, people with AIDS, unwed mothers wanting abortions etc.

I truly believe that if the New Testament times were today, Jesus would be hacked at the "modern US church (as a whole)" for how they have treated people.

Anyway..............

yeah, protestants sucks ass, everyone says something different, and everybody says they are absolutely right.

i think, catholics with their mistakes adn stuff are stiil the WAY TO GO for christians!!!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
He presents analysis that is virtually irrefutable, given the empricial behavior of "the priests."

There shouldn't be any "hardcore followers of nietzsche" per se because FN would encourage people to formulate their own conceptions of morality, so (the individual) can acknowledge that his morality was subjectively constructed and that's ok whereas a christian (no matter to what degree you believe in the Bible or Jesus) always has to rely on some sort of higher code or power to justify his beliefs.

goooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!

God is dead 1 - Protestants 0

hey, that quote
....Isn't the "word of God" simply the "word of man speaking for God"?... resumes everything.

 

[cmurphy59]

It shouldn't matter. Aetheists don't believe in that stuff so hell doesn't exist to them. So they don't care.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
He presents analysis that is virtually irrefutable, given the empricial behavior of "the priests."

From your point of view you think it's irrefutable, I however don't have the same point of view as you. Does that make me wrong and you right? If you go by what you shared about Nietzsche, then I would say no, if truth and morality are subjective to the individual. In effect no one would be right and no one would be wrong.

Again the typical arguement againt the Bible is it was written by man and thus subject to the errors that a falliable human could introduce.

So what is different about Nietzsche? Just because more falliable humans think his writting are irrifuatable (which is debatable, how do you know he's right? But that's not my point), does that make his philosophy correct? You're still basing your justification of "who's more correct" on the falliable judgement of imperfect humans.

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
There shouldn't be any "hardcore followers of nietzsche" per se because FN would encourage people to formulate their own conceptions of morality, so (the individual) can acknowledge that his morality was subjectively constructed and that's ok whereas a christian (no matter to what degree you believe in the Bible or Jesus) always has to rely on some sort of higher code or power to justify his beliefs.

My whole point was not to compare or debate the philosophy of Nietzche compared to the philosophy of Christianity.

My point was again, what makes Nietzche more qualified to write about philisophical life issues than say the ancient rabbi's of Judaism? My point is not to prove who's right and who's wrong, my point is why is it ok to "run down" one philosophy of life, and not another?

If the reason people on here hate (dislike) Christians because they are judgemental and absolute. Why have the same attitude towards them (Christians) that you hate? Why is it ok for non-Christians to be judgemental and absolute in their beliefs and their attitudes towards say Christians, but yet it's "wrong" for a Christian say for example they believe homosexuality is a sin. Do you see the double standard?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
yeah, protestants sucks ass, everyone says something different, and everybody says they are absolutely right.

i think, catholics with their mistakes adn stuff are stiil the WAY TO GO for christians!!!

Why is it cool to say I "suck ass" (I'm a protestant) and yet it's not "ok" for a Christian to say abortion is wrong or homosexuality is a sin?

If you believe the whole truth is relative deal, then what's right is right for you and what's right for me is right for me, correct (in a nutshell)? So what's up with the judgemental absolutism that is contrary to your relativism?

Catholics and Protestants are not too terrible far apart in their theology, they still believe Jesus was the Messiah, they still believe in the God of the Jews, they still believe in an absolute truth. What's the defining characteristic that makes one "suck ass" and one cool?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
Why is it cool to say I "suck ass" (I'm a protestant) and yet it's not "ok" for a Christian to say abortion is wrong or homosexuality is a sin?


2
If you believe the whole truth is relative deal, then what's right is right for you and what's right for me is right for me, correct (in a nutshell)? So what's up with the judgemental absolutism that is contrary to your relativism?

2
Catholics and Protestants are not too terrible far apart in their theology, they still believe Jesus was the Messiah, they still believe in the God of the Jews, they still believe in an absolute truth. What's the defining characteristic that makes one "suck ass" and one cool?

in 2. you are entitled you own beliefs, but not your own facts. what is right for you, is right for you, but if your backing up argument buckles under its own weight. then, alright, u might think you are right. but you are not. is not that i own the absolute truth, but at least i can tell, you dont because your logical tree is flawed.

what differenciates kant, nietzche, russell an all that people from old rabbis?
the fact most modern thinkers know more about reality than old rabbis. plus, philosophy evolves, and what we sustain as truth now, is what is not possible to logically disprove.
if old beliefs are discarded, is because new ones are more logically conclusive. obviously kant, nietzche and russell knew more things than the old rabbis did. that gives them an edge. so would old rabbis had written that down if they had modern day data????

protestants suck ass, because its my impression by living in the south. protestants all asume different positions, and yet they all say they are the absolute right ones. and no one is gonna accept otherwise.

catholics accept knowledge from people with more knowledge than them. alright, they killed and crap, but in the end they accepted their wrong.

protestants dont accept anything, if it contradicts their old beliefs. just see how many fundamentalist protestants say the earth is 6k years old. no matter the evidence, most just wont, ever. the fact they only see ONE meaning in the bible (which is different for everyone seems to be) seriously mess up their grasp of reality.

not many catholics believe that. alright, they didnt take it well at the begining, but in the end, they accepted they were wrong. they accept the bible has many meanings, thus are more open to better ideas.

is that difference in adaptability that makes all the difference in the world.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
in 2. you are entitled you own beliefs, but not your own facts. what is right for you, is right for you, but if your backing up argument buckles under its own weight. then, alright, u might think you are right. but you are not. is not that i own the absolute truth, but at least i can tell, you dont because your logical tree is flawed.

what differenciates kant, nietzche, russell an all that people from old rabbis?
the fact most modern thinkers know more about reality than old rabbis. plus, philosophy evolves, and what we sustain as truth now, is what is not possible to logically disprove.
if old beliefs are discarded, is because new ones are more logically conclusive. obviously kant, nietzche and russell knew more things than the old rabbis did. that gives them an edge. so would old rabbis had written that down if they had modern day data????

protestants suck ass, because its my impression by living in the south. protestants all asume different positions, and yet they all say they are the absolute right ones. and no one is gonna accept otherwise.

catholics accept knowledge from people with more knowledge than them. alright, they killed and crap, but in the end they accepted their wrong.

protestants dont accept anything, if it contradicts their old beliefs. just see how many fundamentalist protestants say the earth is 6k years old. no matter the evidence, most just wont, ever. the fact they only see ONE meaning in the bible (which is different for everyone seems to be) seriously mess up their grasp of reality.

not many catholics believe that. alright, they didnt take it well at the begining, but in the end, they accepted they were wrong. they accept the bible has many meanings, thus are more open to better ideas.

is that difference in adaptability that makes all the difference in the world.

...whaaaaaa...????

Just what the hell are you blathering about...???

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by N8
...whaaaaaa...????

Just what the hell are you blathering about...???

english is not my language. so just make an effort

or do u want me to get the puppets?
or do u care to learn spanish or french so i can explain better?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
english is not my language. so just make an effort

or do u want me to get the puppets?
or do u care to learn spanish or french so i can explain better?

So what all that spew you wrote can be summed up as:

Cathloics = Good

Protestants = Bad

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by N8
So what all that spew you wrote can be summed up as:

Cathloics = Good

Protestants = Bad

catholics = bad

protestants = worst, or for this matter, any fundamentalist, political, religious, nationalistic, or whatever.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
in 2. you are entitled you own beliefs, but not your own facts. what is right for you, is right for you, but if your backing up argument buckles under its own weight. then, alright, u might think you are right. but you are not. is not that i own the absolute truth, but at least i can tell, you dont because your logical tree is flawed.

How do you know my "logic tree" is flawed? Are you perfect? By saying my "logic tree" is flawed and yours isn't is asserting an absolute truth. I thought there was no such thing as an absolute truth(s).

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
what differenciates kant, nietzche, russell an all that people from old rabbis?
the fact most modern thinkers know more about reality than old rabbis. plus, philosophy evolves, and what we sustain as truth now, is what is not possible to logically disprove.
if old beliefs are discarded, is because new ones are more logically conclusive. obviously kant, nietzche and russell knew more things than the old rabbis did. that gives them an edge. so would old rabbis had written that down if they had modern day data????

How do you know they know more about reality? How is our reality any more "real" than the reality of the 1st century? So philosophy evolves, isn't it still created by man? Isn't man falliable? So then how can it be 100% true? Are these guys perfect? If not, then how can their philosophy be any more perfect than what someone else came up with?

This I would argue, since the philosophies can no more be proven to be "correct" (and correct from who's point of view) than the philosophies of say the writers of the Scriptures (I'm talking the philosophies to live by, not "is there a God"), that this is where faith (I'm not talking faith in God here) kicks in.

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
protestants suck ass, .

Again the double standard.

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
catholics accept knowledge from people with more knowledge than them. alright, they killed and crap, but in the end they accepted their wrong.

I thought it was not cool to have people tell you what to believe. Should we all form our opinoins and use our brains? You're asserting that Catholics are "cooler" because they let someone with "more knowledge" tell them what to believe. My pastor knows more than me about alot of theological stuff, but we don't agree on everything, does that make me "suck ass" becasue I don't agree 100% with my pastor because he has "more knowledge".

The Catholics I konw are just as absolute, anti-homosexual, anti-abortion and "pro-Jesus" as my fundamentalist pastor. I think your making broad assumptions here without all the facts.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
How do you know my "logic tree" is flawed? Are you perfect? By saying my "logic tree" is flawed and yours isn't is asserting an absolute truth. I thought there was no such thing as an absolute truth(s).

i knew this one was coming. its easy.
firstable, every idea we have is a simplification of reality. reality itself is the ultimate frame of reference to validate (not prove, but validate, key word here) our ideas and deductions.

i know fundamentalist logic is flawed because it goes against reality sometimes. like the guy swallowed by a whale, and stuff like that.

there are other systems of belief that dont.
if they dont go against, there is a chance they might be right, and that they are closer to "absolute" right.

but if ideas go against reality, (like saying fossils are 100 years old) and we cannot disprove reality (which is our best reference frame for this i think), then there is no chance they are right.

once something is disproved, is gone forever, unless you disprove the disproof.

How do you know they know more about reality? How is our reality any more "real" than the reality of the 1st century? So philosophy evolves, isn't it still created by man? Isn't man falliable? So then how can it be 100% true? Are these guys perfect? If not, then how can their philosophy be any more perfect than what someone else came up with?

This I would argue, since the philosophies can no more be proven to be "correct" (and correct from who's point of view) than the philosophies of say the writers of the Scriptures (I'm talking the philosophies to live by, not "is there a God"), that this is where faith (I'm not talking faith in God here) kicks in.

correct would be 100% like reality. how is our reality more real than the 1st century? well, its not more real, but we know more about it. am not saying its 100% true, am just saying it is more likely to be closer to the truth, because it has not been disproved yet. the ultimate point of view, would be that of reality. after all, our ideas just copy it. to its the most fair thing to wage them against reality.

proving something, only works in a frame of logic. but even if its logically proven, that doesnt mean its 100% true, because you have the uncertainty of our perseption when modeling reality into a logical tree.

Again the double standard.

there is no double standard, because faith implies blindness. am not a blind follower of whoever. i'll take it as far as its the best representation of reality that has not been disproved yet.
am happy with that.
whose reality? well, mine and most people around me. according to whose perseption? according to that of the most. why the most? because chances of random (key word here too) perseption errors are reduced by using bigger universes.

I thought it was not cool to have people tell you what to believe. Should we all form our opinoins and use our brains? You're asserting that Catholics are "cooler" because they let someone with "more knowledge" tell them what to believe. My pastor knows more than me about alot of theological stuff, but we don't agree on everything, does that make me "suck ass" becasue I don't agree 100% with my pastor because he has "more knowledge".

The Catholics I konw are just as absolute, anti-homosexual, anti-abortion and "pro-Jesus" as my fundamentalist pastor. I think your making broad assumptions here without all the facts.

you are the one makind broad assumptions based on your universe of catholics. the fact there are a few catholics like that does not mean every catholic is like that and there si no difference.

i proposed, its more likely catholics change, than fundamentalist change. because of the definition of fundamentalism itself. and because of the evolution of catholicism, and the stagnation of protestanism.

is not like you gotta follow what people who knows more than you do say. there are catholics that dont follow the pope all the time.
but you gotta wage it againts your present belief and decide which one is closer to reality. you gotta listen and learn. just like in school.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

hey, btw am not catholic.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
catholics = bad

protestants = worst, or for this matter, any fundamentalist, political, religious, nationalistic, or whatever.

Again, somehow it's ok to say "A" or "B" is bad, but "C" is good.

Instead of applying your mantra of truth and morals are subjective and all ideas are good for those who believe them (assuming it works fo rthem). You're now saying some ideas are less "valid" than others. How can that be if all truth and morality is subjective?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
hey, btw am not catholic.

I can tell.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
firstable, every idea we have is a simplification of reality. reality itself is the ultimate frame of reference to validate (not prove, but validate, key word here) our ideas and deductions.

Is everyone's reality the same? I would argue no, your reality and mine are different. So if reality is subjective according to the individual how can it be the ultimate frame of reference or standard that we compare everything to?

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
i know fundamentalist logic is flawed because it goes against reality sometimes.

If reality and the reference we compare things to is subjective, how can you "know" it is flawed? This brings me back to my original point.

The main argument against the Bible is it was written by humans and as such has errors and "fiction" because of that. I think it was quoted on here that the Bible is "the word of man speaking for God". The implication with this statement is that the Bible is not "true" or accruate because it was written by men.

Take that idea for agruments sake and apply it to all these philosophers. Applying the arguement that is used to disprove the Bible would seem to disprove these guys as well.

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
correct would be 100% like reality. how is our reality more real than the 1st century? well, its not more real, but we know more about it. am not saying its 100% true, am just saying it is more likely to be closer to the truth, because it has not been disproved yet. the ultimate point of view, would be that of reality. after all, our ideas just copy it. to its the most fair thing to wage them against reality.

How do you know we know more about our reality than they did? The thinkers of that time had alot of free time on their hands to ponder things like this.

Again, is reality the same for everyone? Our reality is the preception of the world around us, we don't all preceive the world the same, do we?

You say "likely to be closer to the truth", which implies there is a truth out there. If morals and truths for the individual is subjective as you have asserted, then how can there be a one truth?

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
proving something, only works in a frame of logic. but even if its logically proven, that doesnt mean its 100% true, because you have the uncertainty of our perseption when modeling reality into a logical tree.

So if there is this "irrefutable" eveidence that you say Nietzche is "correct"(a few posts back), with this statement, how do we know that to be true? Again the uncertainty of our perception makes the individuals reality different than eveyone elses.

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
there is no double standard, because faith implies blindness.

Yes there is a double standard, and it has nothing to do with my assertion you excersise faith to some extent in these philosiphers. Faith does not imply blindness:

Faith: one of the definitions (that fits in this case) "something that is believed especially with strong conviction"

If you say our preceptions are uncertain, then if you did not directly experience Nietzche's reality, then how do you know his philosophy is correct. Through reason and logic no doubt (in your case), but due to the inherent uncertainty of your perceptions, there is a measure of faith excersized there, it may not be much but there is some if as you say there is some uncertainty in perception.

The double standard I refer to is your use of "suck ass protestants". This implies hate or dislike on your part towards a certain group of people. How is this attitude you have any different from the attitude Christians have towards certain groups of people? There is no difference. Is your attitude justified because it's "more enlightened'? Is there ANY justification for an attitude like that by anyone? The whole idea of subjective morals and truth would seem to indicate no.

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
you are the one makind broad assumptions based on your universe of catholics. the fact there are a few catholics like that does not mean every catholic is like that and there si no difference.

Actually no I'm not, I have studied Catholisim, and fundamentally there is very little difference between Catholisim and Protestants (doctinally there are some "minor" issues like how to worship and some interpretation of Scripture, but there is little major doctrinal difference between Catholic and Protestant)

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
you gotta listen and learn. just like in school.

I agree.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
english is not my language. so just make an effort

or do u want me to get the puppets?
or do u care to learn spanish or french so i can explain better?

I understood exactly what you were saying... and I agree with it for the most part. Christians see the extremely ancient book as the an absolute, concrete, literal, truth. I dont get it either, how can a persone successfully back up an argument with 'facts' from an obviously flawed 2+ thousand year old manuscript?

I mean the idea of yaweigh alone was written and rewritten and argued about by various men and then rewritten many times over for generations before it was even accepted as correct. And this is the basis of all of it.

However Alexis, you are debating to a 'brick wall' called faith. The falliable document that is the basis of all Christian argument clearly states that you must have faith in its text, thus, you can not win this debate.

Oh, and the difference between FN and Christianity... FN's = FN never said, if you dont have faith in me you are going to burn for eternity so his ideas are open to interpretation and change. If facts were presented that contradicted one of his ideas people would accept them and adapt... if facts were presented to contradict the Bible they would fall on faithful/deaf ears..

 

[911]

Originally posted by $tinkle
what were they thinking by having a convention Easter weekend in this christian hotbed town?

What was the NRA thinking having conventions following Columbine and the Michigan school shooting?... it's all politics.

 

[phillyvanilly]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
I understood exactly what you were saying... and I agree with it for the most part. Christians see the extremely ancient book as the an absolute, concrete, literal, truth. I dont get it either, how can a persone successfully back up an argument with 'facts' from an obviously flawed 2+ thousand year old manuscript?

I mean the idea of yaweigh alone was written and rewritten and argued about by various men and then rewritten many times over for generations before it was even accepted as correct. And this is the basis of all of it.

I have to say I completely understand this sentiment and it is one I often share, despite being myself what I would call a non-fundamentalist christian. I'd also have to agree with you that taking the bible in and of itself as absolutely infallible and the only basis for faith is a common practice that I feels robs legitimacy from the christian voice. Faith should be based on a true transpersonal experience of the divine, not on, as you say, a 2+ thousand year old manuscript. Dont get me wrong, I do believe the Bible is a window on the nature of God and the world and I do believe it to be divinely inspired, but to take every word and detail as literal is in my opinion unwise. Christ himself taught in metaphor, why would the bible not use the same device as a teaching tool? The hardcore fundamentalist christians(theres alot of em in the springs) would probably say I'm going to hell for questioning that every word of the bible is literal, but as far as I'm concerned if your faith is purely based on a writing and not on a real personal experiecne then it lacks legitimacy anyway.

As for AlexisDH and Lexx, I also understand most of the things you have to say. I was raised in a fundamental christian setting, then completely rejected any religious belief for years, and as you may have noticed, have now become a "christian", but in a very different form from what I see is the norm in the christian community. Sometimes I even hesititate to call myself a christian at all merely because of the worldy conotations of ignorance and prejudice it stirs up in many people. I once saw a teeshirt that said "I've got no problem with God, its his fanclub I cant stand", and I completely agree with that statement. Its easy to blame the problems you see in the church or christian community on the religion as a whole, but christianity is a religion that fully acknowledges the essential flaws of mankind, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Some of the church types who you are talking about often seem to forget about this. I will be the first to point out the flaws of the christian community, in fact they probably bother me more than you since I see not only as bad for society but also a corruption of what I believe. In every major world religion there is truth to be found, but in every one there is also alot of problems arising from it. Islam is not an inherently violent religion, but you get people like Bin Ladin twisting it in order to manipulte people for the purpose of hate. The church has also used religion to manipulate people from practically the very begining, whether it be for political power or financial gain, without fail mankind has managed to corrupt what it has been blessed with. I guess what I'm trying to say is, dont give up on God because some that claim his name are hypocrites, there really are people out there that strive to live the life that Christ exemplified, one based on love and compassion. It wasn't until I found honesty and love in christianity that I began to give it a chance. You are completely right to criticize christianity, I do it all the time and it is often well deserved. And I have read Nietzchse, its actually on my desk right now.

Andyman, you rock. I read alot of what you have to say and I agree with pretty much all of it. I also think if Jesus were here today there would be lots of tables flipping.


More on topic, the road I live on is adopted by the boulder atheists, always good for a laugh. Their meetings must be a BLAST.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by phillyvanilly
I have to say I completely understand this sentiment and it is one I often share, despite being myself what I would call a non-fundamentalist christian.

BTW I must apologize for lumping all Christians into 1 catagory... you quoting my post made me realize that I had said... "Christians take the bible as" instead of "Most Christians take the bible as" which is what I should have said

Anyway, I have had discussions with many Pastors (babtist, presby, catholic), Philosophy professors at the evangelical college that I attended, and all of them always pull out the statement, "well, the bible tells us____".

I see the NT as morally awesome and I think anyone can learn many moral lessons from it but still, the religion as a whole is based on the OT which is just, well, about as belivable as any good fictional epic. And the history of its creation... I really have a problem with it... I have a problem with the great revisions... I have a problem with Heaven and Hell... God's contradictory image (which leads me back to the first and second great revisions)...

I tend to believe that there is a god, or some great entity that created this amazing universe that we live in, and I get comfort from that because really I dont want my conciousness simply to stop when I die... but I think that the OT was part of the ancient uneducated-myth inspired human civilization in the fertile crescent trying to gain comfort in understanding something that is impossible to understand.

I think that man needs understanding, having a massive unsolved problem is just too damn uncomfortable, hence religion... I dont think any of them have it right though, I dont think they can. Personally I tend to embrace the impossibility and simply accept the fact that I will die, and when I do I dont know what will happen, I dont know if I will get answers, I dont know if my conciousness will continue... Im not going to waste my time trying to reach a truth that is absolutely unattainable just because I have some unanswered questions though. When I die I hope I get to continue as some kind of higher conciousness so I can find some $hit out, but if not, thats cool, at least I had conciousness for a while, and I'm happy in knowing that I have tried not to seriously harm anyone elses conciousness while I had mine and I had fun while I was consious, anyway, heres to not knowing

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
I think that man needs understanding, having a massive unsolved problem is just too damn uncomfortable, hence religion...

I agree man does have this inate desire to "know more" (I would say look at Adam and Eve as a good example, but then I would be like those pastors you talked to ).

Anyway, for me (and I'll be the first to admit I'm an unorthodox "fundamentalist" as far as Christians go) my faith has raised more questions than it has answered the more I study the Scriptures and the more I expreince God. Which for me is cool, I like the study and meditation aspect of my faith.

As far as knowing the complete "truth", no human knows that, and anyone that does is a nutcase or a cult leader. As a follower of Jesus I know some truth, but not all the truth. Like you said Golgi, I will one day when I stand before God.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
Like you said Golgi, I will one day when I stand before God.

Or not