|
Post by Scot on Jan 9, 2004 16:32:36 GMT -5
religionstatistics.bravehost.com/statofrel1.htmRead what it says under agnostic. This is supposed to be telling you what someone under a cetain belief is; but instead it's just some know-nothing ignorant asshole giving you his opinion. This Website: Webster's Dictionary: I happen to be number 2, but either way, the person who wrote this article is being ignorant to the definition of 'agnostic'. I FEAR nothing, especially not death; I will die someday, but I do not care, it's just a part of life. As for God, I am trying to find out, thus I am on this website. When it comes down to it, ignorant people piss me off. The look at it from their side, and their side only. This guy, for example, probably didn't ask any agnostic what they think, he just jumped to conclusions based on the miniscule knowledge he had. Ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Amminadab on May 24, 2004 21:39:37 GMT -5
I understand your point. It sometimes hurts to be stereotyped. By all means, not all agnostics fear these things, nor do they not think about such things. At the same time though, we must look at the background to agnosticism.
Agnosticism, according to your source from Webster's Dictionary, has two apparent meanings: 1.)One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2.)One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Let's take a look at the first one. If there is no God, how can you question that there is no God? Man would not understand a concept of God. Man would have never understood perfection, let alone create an illusion of it in their minds. Evolution means that perfection did not occur in the past and that all of the universe is headed towards perfection, but has never achieved it yet. So therefore, by Evolution's standards, man could not understand perfection. How then could man, if there was no God, create the idea of perfection? It is simply impossible.
Now let's look at the other side of the issue. (I would like to note that Webster's did only mention one God. This takes away from Hinduism, Buddhism, and several other Eastern Religions, giving them less credibility by this definition.) Let's assume that there is a God. According to many religions, man must earn his way to God. How could men do this? This makes no sense. Why would a perfect, omnipowerful God (assuming this is how God is because why would God be anything less than all powerful?) allow men to essentially work their way up to him? How can men work on God's standards? This is impossible and highly uncomprehensible. The only logical reason I can understand is that God lowered his standards for us and made a way for us to reach him.
Now let's take a look at the second definition: Well, this is a good start. Not professing atheismis a very good start. Atheism is the belief in no God. As I have looked at above, I do not think it is logically possible to infer that there is no God. It is logically inconceivable and thus it appears that there must be a god, although I am not stating which one, but through my words, it can be logically infered, unlike how Atheism infers that there is no god, which cannot be infered. On the other hand, I believe that there is sufficient logic, evidence, and anecedotes to defend the existance of a god, if one has the time to think about it and check records.
This is my idea on the concept of Agnosticism. It references several works by C.S. Lewis, who i might add was an atheist and who eventually converted to Christianity. He was the Professor of the Medieval Studies and was not exactly an ignorant human being.
|
|
jk
Novice
Posts: 84
|
Post by jk on May 24, 2004 22:04:46 GMT -5
just because a very fallible human gives these religions does not mean that their infallible gods do not exist. further more lets look at buddhism which you lump in this god-having group. I believe that the true buddhist does not believe in a god only a search for becoming desireless. now some buddhists worship the man called buddha as a god since he did become enlightened and ended his cycle of reencarnation although please correct me if im wrong
|
|
|
Post by Lynnet on May 27, 2004 20:57:34 GMT -5
Let's take a look at the first one. If there is no God, how can you question that there is no God? Man would not understand a concept of God. Man would have never understood perfection, let alone create an illusion of it in their minds. Evolution means that perfection did not occur in the past and that all of the universe is headed towards perfection, but has never achieved it yet. So therefore, by Evolution's standards, man could not understand perfection. How then could man, if there was no God, create the idea of perfection? It is simply impossible. I think that it is quite possible for humans to create an ideal image of perfection without the influence of a god. In fact, I believe that this is why there are so many different religions and sects and whatnot; because different people have developed different ideas of "perfection." It also seems likely that this is the case, since the ideals toward which humans strive change so frequently. Monarchy was the big thing a few centuries ago, but now, it would seem, democracy is the new trend in societal perfection. Wow, I've been rewriting this response with no avail for the past 20 minutes...I'll come back some other time and make more sense But yeah...A goal of perfection is not dependent on the existence of a perfect supreme being; in fact, the whole evolution analogy is a large part of how I believe humanity progresses, part of its purpose. By evolutionary standards, perfection has not yet existed in this universe's lifetime. That is why perfection is the ultimate goal, why so many strive to achieve it: because it is the unknown which we aspire to know. Just as we wish to know what happens after death, if anything; just as we wonder if there is life in the universe other than that on Earth; just as we are curious about any unknown, we want to know why we are here and if there is more than what meets the eye. "Curiousity killed the cat" is such a horrid saying...and not because I'm a cat lover...because I'm not...Right...Curiousity is one of the greatest parts of human nature, because when we combine it with sentience and the ability to reason, we embark on the greatest adventure of all: a life of questioning, a quest for answers.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on May 27, 2004 21:23:41 GMT -5
Let's take a look at the first one. If there is no God, how can you question that there is no God? Man would not understand a concept of God. Man would have never understood perfection, let alone create an illusion of it in their minds. Evolution means that perfection did not occur in the past and that all of the universe is headed towards perfection, but has never achieved it yet. So therefore, by Evolution's standards, man could not understand perfection. How then could man, if there was no God, create the idea of perfection? It is simply impossible. Let me start by congratulating you on, in one paragraph, PROVING that there is a god. Good work. Oh, wait... I'm an athiest, hold on a sec. I'll start my argument in my area: Evolution. First, you seem to misunderstand the idea of evolution. There is no mention of perfection in any of the theories, for one. Evolution is simply random adaptations that help a species and its offspring better survive in a changing environment. As long as that environment is changing (there has never been a constant environment on Earth, ever.) then there can be no perfectly adapted species. So not only does evolution not mention perfection whatsoever, it does not even have any implications of perfection. Ok, next. The first gods were not perfect. The Greeks, Romans, Aztecs... you name the polytheistic religion and it had many bickering, evil gods that were far from perfect. It wasn't until the Jews (they were the first, I believe) that there was any mention of a perfect being. I could be wrong about the Jews being first, the Hindus are old too, but the first gods definately were not perfect. As to needing a perfect role model to even conceive perfection? That's just silly. I'd like you to describe perfection for me before we can even start this argument. No one can really describe 'perfection' because it is an ABSTRACT concept. Humans have been coming up with absract concepts since we could think. In other words: your logic is flawed, but good try.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on May 27, 2004 21:36:13 GMT -5
Ok, next. The first gods were not perfect. The Greeks, Romans, Aztecs... you name the polytheistic religion and it had many bickering, evil gods that were far from perfect. It wasn't until the Jews (they were the first, I believe) that there was any mention of a perfect being. I could be wrong about the Jews being first, the Hindus are old too, but the first gods definately were not perfect. You're right Colliohn, the firsts gods were not perfect. Neither are the gods today. Money, sex, cars, or whatever other gods we worship today, are still imperfect. God however is perfect.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on May 27, 2004 21:49:16 GMT -5
You're right Colliohn, the firsts gods were not perfect. Neither are the gods today. Money, sex, cars, or whatever other gods we worship today, are still imperfect. God however is perfect. The ignorant worship money, sex, and cars... and the ignorant worship the God with the big G too. In fact, I would bet that over 75% of those who truly do not worship those three pleasures you listed also do not worship your God with the G.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on May 27, 2004 22:18:35 GMT -5
You're right Colliohn, the firsts gods were not perfect. Neither are the gods today. Money, sex, cars, or whatever other gods we worship today, are still imperfect. God however is perfect. Sorry for any confusion, but when I say 'gods' I am basically throwing in any gods of any religions. This includes monotheistic religions such as Christianity as well as polytheistic religions. But what I was saying was that the idea of your perfect god wasn't the first god worshipped. So that means if we needed knowledge of a perfect role model to even ponder perfection, then no one could have thought of perfection AT ALL until the Jews, or Hindus too, began worshipping their perfect being. (according to that dude I quoted earlier)
|
|
|
Post by Amminadab on May 27, 2004 22:58:44 GMT -5
To jk: according to my studies, Buddhism branched off of Hinduism. It was created by Siddhartha Gautama, who claimed to be the first Buddha (enlightened one) who decided to stay on earth to teach others. He was the first Buddha to not go straight to Nirvana. He claimed he wanted to help others get there. This is where the Eight-fold path comes into existance. While most don't consider him a "god", many people pray, worship, and revear him as such. According to Buddhism, there have been many Buddha's throughout history. Also, keep in mind that the Western concept of Buddhism is different from the Eastern concept of Buddhism. Original Eastern Buddhism desired that men must work up the ladder of humanity to finally reach Nirvana. Western Buddhism (that changed by the hippies of the '60's who thought that Nirvana was their desired place) sought to become more like nature and less like humans. This is inherently opposite from the original desire of Buddhists.
To Lynnet: Yes, humans have different ideas of perfection, but all humans have some idea of perfection. Buddhists believe in Nirvana. Hindus believe in Brahman (escape from rebirth). Christians believe in Heaven. Muslims believe in Heaven. Each has some similarities; each has some differences. Most believe in great excitement for human souls. The exception of this is Hinduism, which only believes in the escape of rebirth and the waiting for the rebirth of the new world. Also, how can one understand perfection on this imperfect world? Surely at no point did humans see something perfect. According to Greek philosophers, only the mind is where the ideal and perfect occur. Once it exits the mind, it is no longer perfect. The question is, how could they first discover that the ideal exists in the mind, without knowing what ideal/perfection is? The definition of perfect, from Old English, is to make complete or to finish. Surely no one could create this from an Evolution standpoint since evolution is never finished. It is always changing. Steven Jay Gould, Charles Darwin, and Thomas Huxley could not and did not consider this when they created their different opinions of Evolution.
To Collijohn: May I ask something to you, the Atheist who viewed my last posting: I want to know what your beliefs are about life, love, happiness, desires, the future, the past, the present, hopes, loneliness, kindness, being helpful to mankind, and other things like that which many men take for granted in society. What do you believe about these? According to Darwinism, it is survival of the fittest. So why help your fellow man who could take your job away from you and make you suffer? Why help an old lady cross the street? She is not as fit as you. What is your logic to do such things. Please do not say, "Because it is right." Why is it right? Atheism has no morals to back their beliefs on. I have heard it said by other Atheists that they believe that they should help society, but these beliefs are based off of religions, and Atheism believes in no gods. Where do Atheists come up with their moral values? The Government? The Government was established on religious principles like justice, equality, and peace for all. This isn't what Darwinism believes. And may I question your logical fallacy by stating that because you are an Atheist, you disprove my logical arguement about the existance of a god. Logicians would have a fit over your arguement. Tisk Tisk. Second, I would like to question your expertice on Evolution. You claim that I know nothing about Evolution. What a shame. Any good military tactician learns that it is wise to know the ways of one's enemy. I have studied Evolution in school and out of school. I know of Steven Jay Gould's beliefs of Puntuated Equilibrium. I know of microevolution, macroevolution, common descent, and Darwinism. I have studied the beliefs of scientists on the subject. I know Evolution, and I disagree on many of their remarks and findings. If you want to better understand your "enemy", then I suggest you read Michael Behe's, Darwin's Black Box. This raises some serious issues with Evolution on the basis of Biochemistry. Read and be enlightened. Oh, and about how Evolution never mentions about perfection, read what many scientists who study the subject have to say about that.
Finally, to JohnnyJihadFace: I would like to take you up on your challenge that over 75% of those who truly do not worship money, sex, and cars also do not worship God, with the G. If you are referencing worldwide, I might have to agree with you. Many people in this world do not know what money and cars are. But, in context, it sounds like you are challenging this in Western Culture. Here I doubt this figure. If you prove me wrong, I will admit it, but I highly doubt that this is true. It seems to me that you are forgetting that the majority of Western Civilization is Christianized. Thanks to missionaries, churches cover the United States, while many cathedrals exist in Europe. Money, sex, and cars (I think cars is the American 3rd ideal) are very large issues throughout the world, and may people still worship them, even though they think they are not doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on May 28, 2004 0:23:44 GMT -5
To Collijohn: May I ask something to you, the Atheist who viewed my last posting: I want to know what your beliefs are about life, love, happiness, desires, the future, the past, the present, hopes, loneliness, kindness, being helpful to mankind, and other things like that which many men take for granted in society. What do you believe about these? According to Darwinism, it is survival of the fittest. So why help your fellow man who could take your job away from you and make you suffer? Why help an old lady cross the street? She is not as fit as you. What is your logic to do such things. Please do not say, "Because it is right." Why is it right? Atheism has no morals to back their beliefs on. I have heard it said by other Atheists that they believe that they should help society, but these beliefs are based off of religions, and Atheism believes in no gods. Where do Atheists come up with their moral values? The Government? The Government was established on religious principles like justice, equality, and peace for all. This isn't what Darwinism believes. And may I question your logical fallacy by stating that because you are an Atheist, you disprove my logical arguement about the existance of a god. Logicians would have a fit over your arguement. Tisk Tisk. Second, I would like to question your expertice on Evolution. You claim that I know nothing about Evolution. What a shame. Any good military tactician learns that it is wise to know the ways of one's enemy. I have studied Evolution in school and out of school. I know of Steven Jay Gould's beliefs of Puntuated Equilibrium. I know of microevolution, macroevolution, common descent, and Darwinism. I have studied the beliefs of scientists on the subject. I know Evolution, and I disagree on many of their remarks and findings. If you want to better understand your "enemy", then I suggest you read Michael Behe's, Darwin's Black Box. This raises some serious issues with Evolution on the basis of Biochemistry. Read and be enlightened. Oh, and about how Evolution never mentions about perfection, read what many scientists who study the subject have to say about that. You tread on dangerous turf, my friend. My beliefs... well, it's late at night and I'm planning on staying up for quite a bit longer, so I'll humor you. Life: I think therefore I am. I am alive, and know I am alive. The question then would be why am I alive? You know what? That's a damn good question. It is one I am not qualified to answer. No one is qualified. Not you, not a minister or any other man or woman of the cloth. You know nothing that I do not know, and vice versa, on the subject of why we exist. You say god. I say I am content with not knowing and of seeking an answer rather than having one handed to me in a neat little package which on closer inspection is full of holes. Love: Love is an interesting thing. Some would say it is simply an animalistic urge to find a mate and reproduce like rabbits. Many others say it is a spiritual bond that lasts for eternity. I would side more with the latter, minus the eternity part. I feel love is one part sex two parts emotion. You've got your physical love, but it isn't truely love unless you really know and care about the other person. Happinness: I am happy to be alive. I am happy to have friends, a family, a girlfriend, a home, a job, a car, a computer... I could go on. Happinness is endorphins in the brain that act as a drug to bring pleasure. This is caused by such as I mentioned above. I find and seak this pleasure through real, solid, existing things. Others pretend they seak this love through a being they wish and hope with all their might to be real, that he may return that love as they hope he has promised. Desires: I desire to have knowledge. I yearn to know the answers to the questions we discuss on this forum. I also desire that which makes me happy. The future: <blank slate> The past: That which has come before, not that which many wish has come before. The present: now Hopes: I hope... for things that make me happy and to fulfill my desires. Loneliness: This is an interesting concept, both on a small, human scale as well as on a universal scale. I do not feel lonely as far as the earth is concerned, but on a universal scale I feel some loneliness but mostly wonder and amazement and hope. Kindess and being helpful to mankind: As relating to your darwinism statement (this is not saying I believe in this concept, I am simply humoring your accusations as to my beliefs) kindness to others is simply a manifestation of the desire to continue the species. This is an instinct that everyone has that we share with lower animals. My logic to do such things as those? I feel happiness when others are happy. When I help someone out, they feel happy, I feel happy, everyone wins. That simple. Atheism has plenty of morals. We simply do not attach a deity to ours. We base our morals of what is right in the real world, such as not killing, not hurting, and the like. We need no morals involving blasphemy because there is nothing to blasphemy. Ah, you share a common misconception as many others do. The government was founded on the same principles on which religions were founded, not on the principles of those religions directly; this is an important distinction. The ten commandments, for example, are mirrored in our laws. The ten commandments, however, were borrowed from other cultures to begin with, so I'd be more inclined to say we borrowed from those other cultures. You know how it works, cite your work from the original source, not someone else who's already cited it. I am confused by your condonement of my responce to your perfection statement. If you would clarify I could explain my responce better. I did not claim you knew nothing about evolution. I said I believed you misunderstood evolution, because I am well studied in that area and I know it has nothing to do with perfection. If you know something I do not in this subject, please share it with me. I doubt you have looked at Evolution with an open mind if you disagree with even Microevolution because, by the way, microevolution has been repeately proven as fact. I could do a simple experiment to show you that involves bacteria and agar and a couple of weeks of time. Your vague references to 'other scientists' mean nothing to me. If you have an argument, present it with references that I can look at directly. Otherwise I have no reason to believe anything you say on the subject. This reference to biochemistry is equally perplexing, and I wouldn't mind getting some more information on your argument. In case you haven't figured it out yet... I know what I'm talking about just a little bit. Please don't patronize me again by asking me to question my beliefs like you did. I guarentee you I know myself better than most people my age, and this includes ALL that I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Lynnet on May 28, 2004 22:12:29 GMT -5
To Lynnet: Yes, humans have different ideas of perfection, but all humans have some idea of perfection. Buddhists believe in Nirvana. Hindus believe in Brahman (escape from rebirth). Christians believe in Heaven. Muslims believe in Heaven. Each has some similarities; each has some differences. Most believe in great excitement for human souls. The exception of this is Hinduism, which only believes in the escape of rebirth and the waiting for the rebirth of the new world. Also, how can one understand perfection on this imperfect world? Surely at no point did humans see something perfect. According to Greek philosophers, only the mind is where the ideal and perfect occur. Once it exits the mind, it is no longer perfect. The question is, how could they first discover that the ideal exists in the mind, without knowing what ideal/perfection is? The definition of perfect, from Old English, is to make complete or to finish. Surely no one could create this from an Evolution standpoint since evolution is never finished. It is always changing. Steven Jay Gould, Charles Darwin, and Thomas Huxley could not and did not consider this when they created their different opinions of Evolution. I do agree that perfection on such a limited scale as perceived by humans is not possible once it enters the real, physical world outside of the mind. However, I believe that the universe as a whole is a perfect system; no one part of it could exist without every other part. Meanwhile, humans try to develop a perfect system, to find perfection, to make the world a better place. This is all part of the journey of life: to seek perfection, even though perfection already exists. We are just too small to see it all. But meanwhile, we improve on our own little world, our system within a greater system. I do not claim to understand much about the established scientific theory of Evolution, however I do know that it is a very broad thing, parts of which have been observed to be wrong while others have been observed to be correct. Scientific theories are not absolute; they are open to change. The theory of Evolution in itself should evolve. When I used evolution as a parellel, I did not mean the specifics of the scientific theory. Rather, I used it to mean "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" (Dictionary.com). The system of our world is always changing and improving on itself (though improvement is a matter of opinion). I think it is impossible that we will ever develop a system which is perfect for every person on the Earth, however close we may come. I've written more on this in the "What To Live For" topic in this section of the boards. One does not have to see a goal before it is found in order to seek it. Seeking what one already understands is a rather futile quest. This is why we seek what we do not understand, in attempts to understand it. Whether we end up understanding it in the end or not is the real question. If I ever get there, I'll let you know.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on May 29, 2004 4:50:41 GMT -5
To jk: according to my studies, Buddhism branched off of Hinduism. It was created by Siddhartha Gautama, who claimed to be the first Buddha (enlightened one) who decided to stay on earth to teach others. He was the first Buddha to not go straight to Nirvana. He claimed he wanted to help others get there. This is where the Eight-fold path comes into existance. While most don't consider him a "god", many people pray, worship, and revear him as such. According to Buddhism, there have been many Buddha's throughout history. Also, keep in mind that the Western concept of Buddhism is different from the Eastern concept of Buddhism. Original Eastern Buddhism desired that men must work up the ladder of humanity to finally reach Nirvana. Hi, if I might just add something here. Buddhism - in any form - is based around the 4 Noble Truths - 1. Suffering or 'dukkha' is the first noble truth. As human beings, suffering is part of our lives, whether physical, mental or emotional. More fundamentally, there is a sense within us that life cannot bring lasting satisfaction. Life is impermanent and ever-changing, and any happiness that we enjoy is unstable. 2. The Cause of Suffering is craving or 'tanha'. When we crave for things (material, spiritual or whatever) and we don't get them, we suffer. In a subtle way a lot of this craving is to do with bolstering a sense of permanent self rather than realising we just have an ever-changing 'personality'. 3. The End of Suffering can be found by removing the craving. This is nirvana ( 'nibbana'). If one doesn't crave or 'cling' one can't suffer. 4. The Eightfold Path is the path to the end of suffering, it consists of - - right understanding, - right thought, - right speech, - right action, - right livelihood, - right effort, - right mindfulness and - right concentration All Buddhist sects believe in the above. Precisely how one goes about achieving nirvana within that framework is a matter of personal opinion. There are many paths. The main sects are as follows: Theravada Buddhism is based upon perfecting one's life and thereby reaching enlightenment. It is mainly practiced in Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Sri Lanka. Mahayana Buddhism specifically emphasises the practice of compassion for the benefit of all beings. It is mainly practiced in India and Nepal. Vajrayana or 'Tibetan' Buddhism has a much more supernatural, mystic and iconographic feel to it. They believe in heaven and hell (as well as other dimensions), gods, ghosts and whole variety of supernatural phenomena. Soto Zen believes in prefecting the art of meditation (' zazen') to achieve enlightenment. Rinzai Zen believes that 'sudden' enlightenment is the best thing to aim for, and they make great use of the koan and 'shock tactics' to try and aid this sudden awakening. There are other sects of Buddhism too (15+ in total I think), but those are the main ones. Virtually all Buddhists just see a different sect (or different religion even) as a different way to achieve the same thing. There may be argument on a philosophical level, but that's as far as it goes. In the state of nirvana, none of it matters anyway. The different paths are just made up of words and thoughts and other impermanent things; nirvana is beyond that. Don't confuse the path with the goal. All Buddhists believe in the one goal, although their paths may vary. It is also safe to say that Buddhists have a great deal of tolerance for alternative paths (and religions) because they ultimately see them as 'worldly' concepts which are impermanent and not worth craving for in the long run. One must eventually even lose ones craving to follow a particular path if nirvana is to be realised. Also, don't confuse nirvana with a place. It's here, all around us - it's just that we don't realise it. Western Buddhism is no less valid than Eastern Buddhism. There is no duality between nature and human in the Buddhist understanding, so I don't believe it's ' opposite' to ' the original desire of Buddhists'. Yes, there certainly was a certain amount of fadishness about Buddhism with 60's hippies which probably didn't help Buddhism's image, but it's not really that important. One of the main problems with transferring Buddhism to the West is linguistic. We divide our language down into verbs and nouns, subjects and objects, actions and things and that promotes a very dualistic way of thinking. In Eastern languages they have many combined noun-verbs and such, and that gives its people a less dualistic understanding in general. I could go one, but I'm sure most readers are bored already!
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on May 29, 2004 21:31:24 GMT -5
"May I ask something to you" - Amminadab I believe the correct usage is ask something of you, not to you. Just pointing that out. ah, grammar dude strikes again!!!
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Jun 3, 2004 14:24:21 GMT -5
Finally, to JohnnyJihadFace: I would like to take you up on your challenge that over 75% of those who truly do not worship money, sex, and cars also do not worship God, with the G. If you are referencing worldwide, I might have to agree with you. Many people in this world do not know what money and cars are. But, in context, it sounds like you are challenging this in Western Culture. Here I doubt this figure. If you prove me wrong, I will admit it, but I highly doubt that this is true. It seems to me that you are forgetting that the majority of Western Civilization is Christianized. Thanks to missionaries, churches cover the United States, while many cathedrals exist in Europe. Money, sex, and cars (I think cars is the American 3rd ideal) are very large issues throughout the world, and may people still worship them, even though they think they are not doing so. Okay, this should make my point more clear. To be blunt: I believe that atleast 75% of the people (westernized civilizations, correct) who hold beliefs and standards for themselves that prevent them from worshiping sex, money, cars and such.. are also ones who don't follow a religious doctrine. I Also must admit that I had a different perspective on what we were talking about at the time, what I really meant to get across was that it is my firm belief that if you find someone who is a firm free thinker, one who doesn't conform to how society, the media, or the government wants us to be.. they are going to most likely be a non-believer. Where as the majority of our population is A. Christian and B. Quick to conform C. Obsessed with self image D. for the most part, Amoral. Note: A and B up there go hand in hand for a lot of people. My overall point here is that In my opinion, the majority of the people who truly think for themselves in this country do not follow a religious doctrine. Understand that I realize there is an absolutely immense amount of exceptions and it is not something I hold against the "christian" but rather something I dislike about the average American. You can call this a superiority complex if you'd like, I'll of course scoff at that based on the simple fact that I know my beliefs a lot better than I'm able to actually put into words on here.. and I understand that this produces some misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Jun 3, 2004 21:47:50 GMT -5
Let me be equally as blunt:
America is not a Christian country. To say so is tomfoolery. Yes, it was founded on Christian morals, yes, our judicial system still abides by those principles, but no, the majority of people in America are not Christian.
What is a Christian? It means little Christ. Jesus Christ was God, become man, who was crucified in a horrible manner for claiming to be who he was. Many people in America may say, "I consider myself a Christian," or "I am a Christian (but I don't go to church)", but they are as far from Christ as the Romans who tortured Jesus. The Bible is quite clear on this. "Why do you call me, Lord, Lord and do not do what I say?" Christianity is not defined by a similar set of values, nor even beliefs, but by a real re-establishment of the ancient lost relationship with the living God. Going to church makes one a Christian as much as going into a garage makes one a car.
While I, too, John, see much immorality in America -- if they do not know Jesus Christ, than there is no point in trying to define their religiosity. It is entirely fake. It has nothing to do with their free-thinkingness, it has to do with their heart, which is very hard towards God, closed off and bitter. It is the same problem you and I deal with, if we are willing to acknowledge this before God.
Isn't time you came to that point too?
The world is full of pain, bitterness, anger and sorrow. Only in the cross is reality re-made and undone forever.
|
|