RolePlayGateway™

Tigeress · by **Tigeress** on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:34 am

No as that would be illogical freind. :) .

Basically a small example saying that "You go no place when you die" does little to make a society comfortable with dying. In fact it creates a very negative feeling as a whole. Many people would simply not accept death easily, and often time that is just as harmful as too much belief.

Now if you believed that there was some other realm of existence for good after death, that would make most people very agreeable to it.

Imagine if your talking to a small child, and their pet dies, do you tell them "He's gone, and will never exist again." or do you say something to the effect, "He's in heaven" or "He's inside of you." which in a moreskeptical view, the pet is merely a memory, and all of its emotional attachments mean less.

As a non-relgious romantic though, I find that those lines often cross lol., like at times I find myself wanting to believe in something more, life eternal paradise whatever (the romantic) when there is little evidence to support that need

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:38 pm

I see two sources of bias: one, you want beliefs to be socially beneficial; and two, you want to believe that life continues after death. I'm not convinced that either of these biases help you establish whether or not the corresponding beliefs are true. Where do these biases come from, though? Why do you pause to consider whether or not some belief is healthy? And why do you even want to believe something that you have no evidence of?

Let's see the alternative.

The truth could quite easily be something that appears unhealthy, making those who know it appear altogether deranged when compared to people who don't know it. It could be socially destructive and isolating. And it definitely would have all the evidence in the world backing it; being absolutely true, there'd be zero need for those leaps of faith people seem compelled to make. A leap of faith -- belief without evidence -- would be clear evidence that a person has been lead into error!

Tigeress · by **Tigeress** on Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:02 pm

I'll admit im biased lol, but im also openminded thank you very much :) , im saying that belief can be healthy, as you could mentally scar a child with the truth. People can be motived to do things that are necessary with a lie, so long that it gets what they need in the end without being harmful to others.

But I agree that thinking on whether the belief is healthy or not is important, I've already preached that logic is necessary for a society. Your asking basically the same questions I approve of, but it is still possible to have faith even as a open minded person.

And a society as a whole is full of leaps of faiths. A freind tells you that there is a burger in the fridge that you can have. You have no hard evidence, no photos, no aroma's that you can detect, and thus the very act of trusting this individual's mere word, is a complete leap of faith lol

The very essence of trust (which I think is essential in a society) is based purely off faith... Relgion is a more complex version than this simple exam

Lukisod · by **Lukisod** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:59 am

Tigeress wrote:And a society as a whole is full of leaps of faiths. A freind tells you that there is a burger in the fridge that you can have. You have no hard evidence, no photos, no aroma's that you can detect, and thus the very act of trusting this individual's mere word, is a complete leap of faith lol

No. It's based on the past experience I've had with that friend. Over time I have come to learn that this friend of mine generally tells me the truth about things of this nature. So the probability is high that there is indeed a burger in the fridge. If it were a complete stranger then I'd be more skeptical about such claims. However even still, it's not a leap of faith. We know from past experience that burgers and fridges do exist and that there is exists conditions which cause a burger to be inside a fridge. So the claim is not totally implausible.

This is not faith by any stretch. This would be a very evidence based decision.

Trust of a complete stranger I suppose could be faith based. Even so, people tend towards the truth. If everything everyone said was a lie we'd get nowhere as a species. So the choice to trust someone comes from past experience with other people. It's also dependent on other factors such as how they look, how they talk, the culture you are in etc.

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:29 pm

To what degree should you trust authority? Obviously, if putting total faith in received knowledge is a good thing, you'd have every reason to accept whatever religion happens to be popular. Is there a difference between trusting a biologist when he talks about evolution, and a priest when he talks about sin? (Or, what about a biologist talking about sin, and a priest talking about evolution?)

Tigeress · by **Tigeress** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:25 pm

For the most part Lukisod, its still based on faith id' say. Your trusting this person to be predictable ect. when your freind could be a utter ass, even if countless times they have been good to you. (Had a freind who was a terrible roomate for example lol)

And yeah, thats my point, it is necessary to have faith in strangers ect to have a successful society. People you've never met before saying somthing, BUT granted we try to do so logically often times, but many times we have to simply take peoples word for it whether we like the odds or not.

Dealing with it, you keep seeming to forget that I say "Logically" putting trust in something. Its not being sheep and believing for the sake of it, but rather because the faith is beneficial to you in some way.

Again, if you put logic first, and don't kill the non-believers or some other oddity that is a harm to a society as a whole, what is the problem with faith? If I were to believe in a god of fluffy kittens, what of it? So long that im not harming society

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:38 pm

Tigeress, I'm having a hard time trying figuring out why you think something is more important to human flourishing than having true beliefs. There's nothing about logic that makes conflict inherently worse than delusion; in fact, not only would I prefer to expunge delusions, like the kitty god, first, I'd think that you'd need to get rid of such falsehoods to be fully logical. You can't even correctly decide what's most logical without having truth in the first place.

A society of fools, even long-living fools, doesn't strike me as something worth being a part of, no matter how peacefully they coexist. A civilization of mental cases is worse than one of sages. Regardless, if everyone were a sage, I doubt they'd have any reason to be violent, but that's merely a fortunate byproduct, not the goal. (Yes, I believe the violence perpetuated by America against the rest of the world is pretty cut-and-dried evidence that they are a civilization of mental cases.)

Lukisod · by **Lukisod** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:40 pm

Logic is a tool. A useful tool for making decisions based on information. However it has it's weaknesses and can be misused. Deception is also a tool. It has it's positive uses. God and religion (IMO) are also tools. Maybe, less than useful for moving humanity forward, but they have their uses and can be misused. It's all about who employs these tools and to what end.

Any Sage would know the importance of violence in a society. One must always be ready to meet violence with violence else they are likely to be destroyed.

America is a society who is really good at War and thus they are more likely to employ their best tool in the box. That's how I see that bit.

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:52 pm

I don't think you are giving logic nearly enough credit for how powerful of a tool it is. I find it mind-boggling how easy it is to overlook the simple fact that we know enough about reality that we can be sure any given disjunctive syllogism is always true. Reality is, quite fundamentally, logical. If we want to know anything more about it, that is the single best starting point we could ever use.

I'll drink either tea or coffee. I won't drink tea. Therefore, I will drink coffee. Where does that "therefore" come from; why am I allowed to use it?

I may be counting the number of angels on the head of a pin here, but I think that tidy little formula is among the most profound and magnificent intellectual discoveries, well, ever. Can you even imagine the world before it was known?

A missile isn't a tool; it's a toy for rich children who refuse to be adults. Logic is a tool for philosophers.

Lukisod · by **Lukisod** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:07 am

Logic is quite the tool. Eugenics is a fairly logical system. Someone is not as well suited to humanity so we kill them off or remove their right to breed. Therefore, stronger humanity as a whole. Free speech is entirely illogical because we know people say stupid things. Stupid things are bad to say, therefore, don't let them speak. Torture can be logically applied. I need information and torture can get that information, therefore, torture the guy.

I'm not saying Logic is bad. Logic is a tool. A very useful one like you're saying. It's gotten us very far as a civilization but it's not the be all and end all like you seem to be making it out to be. Sometimes we have to leave the world of cold logic and rely more on emotions like empathy.

dealing with it wrote:A missile isn't a tool; it's a toy for rich children who refuse to be adults.

Now that is an emotional statement if I ever heard one and is not based anywhere in logic, but this is a world view thread, not a necessity of arms thread so I wont go into it.

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:28 am

Lukisod wrote:Logic is quite the tool. Eugenics is a fairly logical system. Someone is not as well suited to humanity so we kill them off or remove their right to breed. Therefore, stronger humanity as a whole.

This example doesn't even follow a logical format. Formally, it's "p is not s, therefore k or b, therefore h". When you have one non-sequitur after another, it's known as square logic -- which is not to be confused with logic.

Free speech is entirely illogical because we know people say stupid things. Stupid things are bad to say, therefore, don't let them speak.

1. People say stupid things. (p)
2. When people say stupid things, it is bad. (if p then b)
3. Therefore, people ought not to speak. (o)

Yes, that's p and "if p then b", therefore o. Another non-sequitur. There's a missing premise, between 2 and 3. I hope it's clear now that I've carefully re-arranged 2 to capture your meaning.

I need information and torture can get that information, therefore, torture the guy.

Same as above. You seem to think you can get from description to decision without stating a normative value. As a rule, if the only statement in your argument that can be rewritten with the word "ought" is the conclusion, then your conclusion does not follow from your premises. The only way you can prove that torture is good is by valuing something. I shouldn't have to point out holes in your logic when you value torture; it should always be a simple question of ethics.

Really, I think you really need to work on polishing your form when you use logic. There's no reason whatsoever to make logical writing hard to read. As an example, I particularly like the phrase of Aristotle, which captures the essence of thinking clearly and logically about reality. "If the object is existent it exists in a particular way, and if it does not exist in this way it does not exist at all."

I'm not saying Logic is bad. Logic is a tool. A very useful one like you're saying. It's gotten us very far as a civilization but it's not the be all and end all like you seem to be making it out to be. Sometimes we have to leave the world of cold logic and rely more on emotions like empathy.

Other way around. We ought to enter the world of logic, and then follow that path to truth. Many people spend their whole lives in the topsy-turvy world of emotions, and never learn how to view the world through a logical lens. Empathy is easy, and easy to take advantage of. It actually takes practise or training to use logic properly, and it takes real commitment to view the entire world logically.

Anyway, it is simply impossible to view the world accurately unless you are willing to view it using "cold" logic. Do you trust your emotions to tell you whether or not evolution is true, or a mathematical formula is true, or Newton's laws are accurate? If your goal is to have correct answers, emotion is out of place. It is your reason that should do the work.

Now that is an emotional statement if I ever heard one and is not based anywhere in logic, but this is a world view thread, not a necessity of arms thread so I wont go into it.

I emphasized that enlightened sages have no need of violence, as a byproduct of their wisdom. If someone is violent, in that they believe they need to use the force of arms to get what they want, it only follows, by modus tollens, that they are not enlightened. Sure, I could have called military men fools, since foolishness is the opposite of wisdom, but calling them childish works just as well.

America is a bully with a big stick, ready to beat anyone else into submission at the slightest provocation, or for the glimmer of immediate gain. There are hidden consequences, long-term consequences, to abusing military force. That's why any country of sane people would rather use diplomacy.

Lukisod · by **Lukisod** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:09 pm

Well I must concede the point then as my attempts at logic were soundly destroyed. I shall endeavour to learn a bit more about formal logical arguments before attempting them again. I still stand by my examples though, however poorly worded they may have been.

I seem to have made another blunder with my second point, but I must ask if your premise is indeed that emotion has no true place in the light of logical analysis? I was attempting with my first point to bring up examples where strict logic may not the the best course of action.

My last point is that in a world of "Childish" men. A sage will still have need of violence in the case where violence is used against them. The world is not perfect nor will it ever be. So there will always be a need for people willing to apply violence to protect those who cannot or will not.

I don't defend America's foreign policy. I'm not even American. I'm just trying to give plausible reason why they may be predisposed to use of their military.

Tigeress · by **Tigeress** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:48 pm

Back to my orginal point, you Dealing with it, you seem to be completely forgetting I say "Logically.

logic simply cannot tell us what is in the beyond, or speak on matters of the heart well, logic cannot ever answer all our questions in many areas, and logic cannot be used to comfort people on these matters. These things are important to have something in place to make a society flow.

I am not saying that Logic is useless, to me it is more important than Faith, BUT a perfect society has a peaceful mix of these traits will be more beneficial than one or the other.

I'd be called a fool, but I believe world peace of some kind is obtainable. It is naive, illogical, drastically utopian, and without merit. but i'd rather believe that it is a possible, than the alternative. Im content with being a fool in that manner, but am well aware of how flawed the logic is of it.

I guess what im saying is a mix of these is important, as i'd be unhappy in a world with one or the other. (but thats me)

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:09 pm

Lukisod

I seem to have made another blunder with my second point, but I must ask if your premise is indeed that emotion has no true place in the light of logical analysis? I was attempting with my first point to bring up examples where strict logic may not the the best course of action.

Yes, I do mean that. An emotion cannot tell you what's true: it might indicate that you are attached to something or some answer, but that should be interpreted as a warning to be careful, lest your reason be mislead.

Admittedly, I may be somewhat biased in my opinion against emotions. I have bipolar disorder, the experience of which is an emotional affect that is so intense that coherent thought is no longer possible. Even when treated, it is no longer possible for me to see positives to feelings. Even a mild emotion can mislead.

My last point is that in a world of "Childish" men. A sage will still have need of violence in the case where violence is used against them. The world is not perfect nor will it ever be. So there will always be a need for people willing to apply violence to protect those who cannot or will not.

That only justifies self-defense, which is relatively cheap, not the real-world actions of the largest and most expensive military on the planet.

Tigeress

logic simply cannot tell us what is in the beyond, or speak on matters of the heart well, logic cannot ever answer all our questions in many areas, and logic cannot be used to comfort people on these matters.

Where you can't speak logically, how can you justify speaking at all? If everything tells us that we are ignorant, then we are ignorant.

I really don't think anyone can be comforted by something they know is a lie. Hiding the fact that the afterlife is a lie from people is, quite frankly, immoral.

Tigeress · by **Tigeress** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:29 pm

Logic does not state that the afterlife is a lie lol, Logically you simply cannot make a opinion for or against it, so in fairness saying different is just as bad because there is no evidence to speak against it.

And whether you believe it or not, it is a simple fact that a lot people are comforted by the thought of a afterlife, so immorale or not, logically it works.

For example, if a family member goes to war and gets killed by enemy mortar fire, i do not want to hear that they were blown apart before they even knew what happened, their guts splattering their comrads. Instead i'd like to hear that they died bravely or at least believe the sacrifce was not in vain.

Logically, the fact is that the said person above did nothing, they are gone, never to return, and did little to influence the world. However, i'd rather believe that they did.

People take comfort in lies. Hope in and of itself is a lie, and is only separated from delusion by a different view.

Anyway, seem to be goin' in circles now :)

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:10 pm

Tigeress wrote:Anyway, seem to be goin' in circles now

We've got different priorities, and it's a hell of a thing to decide whose priorities are right. I seek truth, seeing it the highest value; you prefer health and stability.

I take J.S. Mill's view on this matter. "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."

Circa · by **Circa** on Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:50 am

My mother told me never to debate religion or politics, but you seem like an intelligent and respectful crowd that I could learn something from. Let me start by saying this is not the place to convert people, in any way insult or negatively reflect anyone's beliefs and please do not insinuate that someone's religious experiences are fictional. Obviously we don't all believe the same things but that's of course the beauty of it.

In my personal experience belief/faith is hard to instill just by teaching someone about your system of beliefs. In a sense it matters not the amount of 'mission' work [for lack a of a better word] or pilgrimage that the believers participate in but the "testimonial" that something greater has either impacted or neglected to impact a life, group etc.

I would like to share first as it may open this whole can o' worms.

I was raised by a baptist-christian family that felt the need to baptize me [if you don't know what that is, is a simple ritual where a person is symbolically reborn by accepting the church and 'savior' aspect of the religion and arise from some water] at an early age. Let's just say far too early for me to know what any of that meant. Being raised in such an environment influenced my beliefs even today, although it was not long before a lack of spiritual fulfillment would actually drive me to seek something greater than the church I had known. I turned to some apathetic agnosticism as early as age 13 and started to see that wouldn't work for me either probably by the time I was 16. I started doing some heavy research concerning early religions, philosophy, and the odd inherent need of humans to either be satisfied or validated by something as personal and controversial as beliefs. I read books on subjects that I thought were beyond my grasp; topics covering theories behind quantum physics, collective consciousness, ancient worship and rituals. My beliefs have since become very alive and whether you believe it or not, my soul or spirit or whatever you wanna call it feels on fire. I feel aware to things that I could never know before somehow like the intimacy that comes with being spiritually active. I set aside all disbelief and was utterly astonished at what I have found. I find it hard to express such ideas with words, but I know that common terms for beings I have encountered since I have become brave enough to explore any belief have been called demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, miracles, magic, gods, energy, vibrations the list goes on... I suspect, had I never questioned my beliefs or my role-models beliefs I would have been content with what I was taught, and still ignorant to what I truly desired to get from spiritual and religious experience. I know what you believe can be touchy so let me clarify (AGAIN), just because we disagree does not mean I think any less of you or your faith.
I don't claim to know the truth,
I simply ask what has brought you to this point in your understanding [or lack thereof] of religious-spiritual activity/awareness.
Be as descriptive as you see fit, it needn't be as wordy, I just thought the tiny back story would give some explanation as to how I have arrived at this place.
~Circa

ViceVersus · by **ViceVersus** on Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:33 pm

Hey there, Circa!

Just wanted to let you know I merged your topic into one that's highly similar to it - actually, one of our major like threads on the website. This is to conserve space, and inspire discussion once more.

Thanks!

-VV

Scumbag_Brain · by **Scumbag_Brain** on Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:25 pm

Part of me prefers the fundamentalist Christians who hold signs that read God hates Fags. At least they are logically consistent. Most Christians edit the Bible keeping the bits that are warm and fuzzy and removing the parts which are abominable from a modern perspective. They are each like their own tiny, self contained Council of Nicea.

The funny part is that in editing the Bible, modern Christians tacitly concur with atheists and agnostics that the real source of ethics and 'the good' is not a Celestial Being or His Offspring, but rather ourselves. They are all using their own heart to determine ethical behavior and call it God, the Bible or whatever. This is evident in the fact that they disagree. Human hearts are diverse, but there is only one God, only so many versions of the Bible, and only so many ways to interpret Leviticus.

DestroytheOrcs · by **DestroytheOrcs** on Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:09 pm

Kira Walker wrote:[[DISCLAIMER]]

These are my beliefs. I'm not flaming on anyone, I'm not hating on anyone, I'm just saying how I see things, trying to clear up some misconceptions, answer some questions, and the like. Meaning I don't want anyone running in here and flaming and hating, because that's not the point of this thread. If you wanna discuss, go right ahead. This is, after all, the Discussion forum.

I'm gonna try and keep this as organized as possible, but I've got a whole lot of ideas going through my head. I'll try and order them out in a way that makes sense.

[[QUESTIONS]]
These are different questions and such that I've been asked, sometimes by several people, and these are answers that might help clear up some comfusions people have.
Credit to Dionysus' fortune telling thread for giving me the idea for this.

Q: Have you always been Christian?

No. In fact, I was only saved last October. My family is Catholic, but none of them seriously practice. They tried to get me to be Catholic when I was young, but actually, it just made me hate the concept of it.

Q: Were you into religion beforehand?

I was completely devoted to Wicca immediately before I was saved, and had been for... five years, yes. I hated Christianity.

Q: Why become a Christian then?

I originally went to Wicca because it promised me real, solid evidence that it was legit... you know, feeling stuff, power, etc, etc, etc. I'm sorry, but it was never there for me. I believed it because at that point, I believed in the ideals, since I thought they were true. However, once I moved away from Hamilton and came here, a new friend convinved me to come meet his Youth Pastor. They had a worship session while I was there, and I had my first experience of meeting God. Frankly, once you've felt him, I don't really think it's possible to simply ignore him anymore.

Q: Are you sure you felt God? That sounds like a bunch of crap to me.

That question's like me asking, are you sure you've felt happy? You know you have, because you've felt it. You know. You can't give me solid proof, but you know. It's like that. I had a physical manifestation as well as an emotional and mental one. I know, 100%, that I felt God for the first time that day.

Q: What's that like?

The experience is what happens when you become filled with the Holy Spirit. It's a bit different for everyone. In Acts, a book in the Bible, is where this experience is first described. The Apostles are described as seeming like they were drunk, and as having spoken in tongues, with everyone present able to understand in their own languages. However, as I said, everyone manifests and feels it differently. Sometimes there are physical manifestations, such as crying, laughing, speaking in tongues, shaking, falling, dizziness, etc etc etc. Sometimes there are more inward ones, such as giddiness, black outs, visions, hearing God speak to you audibly, a feeling of being overwhelmed emotionally, etc etc. Sometimes there are mental manifesations, such as revelation, blessings for others, recieving Words of Knowledge for other people, etc etc. Personally I've experienced several of these. I have the bruises to prove a couple of them.

[[MISCONCEPTIONS]]

Alright, now to clear some stuff up.

First off, the whole rule thing, 'cause this one gets me the worst I think. Lots of people look at Christianity and the first thing they think is, "I gotta follow all of these stupid rules or else I'm gonna go to hell." And who likes rules? Nobody. No one likes rules. So, lots of people lose interest immediately.

However, in reality there really aren't that many rules. The Old Testament of the Bible is when salvation depended on following a strict set of rules. However, Jesus was sent to complete this for us, and die as a sacrafice to cover our sins, much like the Old Testament tradition of slaughtering an innocent lamb to cover sins. Jesus also changed the rules for us. He made it very simple: love your God, and love your neighbour. If you follow the rule of love, then following the rest of the commandments just comes naturally.

However, another thing changed. God made it incredibly, incredibly simple for us, even beyond that point. All he said we had to do was believe that Jesus was His son who died for our sins, and if we did that, then we were saved. Plain and simple. Once saved, He said to be like Christ. Who's Christ? He's God. They're one in the same person. Jesus was God in the form of man. And the Bible teaches us that God is love. So what do we have to do? Be like love. In other words, be loving. Simple, eh? Yeah.

Okay, furthermore, I. DO. NOT. HATE. LESBIANS. GAYS. BISEXUALS. WICCANS. ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I'm very tired of people getting on my case about these things just because I'm a Christian. I don't support them, no. I don't agree that it's right, no. However, those are simply my beliefs. Thst doesn't mean I hate them because of it, not in the slightest; one of my best friends, who's female, has been telling me how much she likes me and would love to date me for nearly five years now.

Before you call me prejudiced, consider this: you don't think someone's being prejudiced if they say they don't think it's right that the druggy over there is smoking pot, do you? It's all a matter of opinion, realistically.
A Christian who isn't just talk and who actually lives the lifestyle will understand that you don't hate the person, you hate what they do. If someone's doing drugs, you don't hate them because they're a druggy. You hate the fact that they're doing drugs. And if they don't want help, then you know what? Alright. You leave it alone.

What's another one...

Oh yeah. I got this one the other day. The old, how can I call myself a Christian when I do this and this and this and blah blah blah.

Christians aren't perfect. Any who claim to be are ruining our name. We're just the same as everyone else, we screw up, we fall down, we do bad crap. The only difference is that as a Christian we feel we've got a safety net to fall back on, even if we do bad things.

Now, this opens up another thing. People seem to have the misconception that we teach that anyone will be forgiven of anything, as long as they just say a magic prayer. This isn't the case. If you don't actually repent, the forgiveness isn't there. God's not stupid, people. He's not gonna forgive someone who isn't actually sorry. This is why I totally don't agree with the whole confession thing they do in elementary Catholic schools. You know, where you go see the preacher, be all like, "My name is Bobby Joe, my last confession was three years ago, these are my sins" yaddayadda. And then he's all like, "Say three Our Father's and all is forgiven" blahblah. All you've gotten the kid to do is babble off some memorized verses. That's not going to help him unless he truly repents as well.

.....

I don't know if there's anything else to put here. I started typing this yesterday and now I just woke up and all my thoughts flew out of my head in my sleep.

This is all just my beliefs, remember. If you've got any debates, or wanna ask any questions, feel free to do so.

Blarg.

I like that you've tried to simplify it all but religion has never been and never will be that simple. I shall go in the same order as you, though.

1. You spoke of truly experiencing God and the symptoms that it entailed. You said that you have bruises left from these very experiences. That seems a little odd but when you consider the story of Jesus I suppose experiencing a little bit of pain in the presence of an omnipotent force is to be expected. However, the symptoms that you explained such as shaking, dizziness, and speaking of tongues are also all signs of demonic possession.
I'm not trying to make fun of you and I am not trying to mock you. I'm a preacher's son (he was raised Catholic and even went to Catholic school but he later converted to Christianity when he had his own experience while he was in prison which was before I was born) and I have been raised with the Word my entire life.
These signs of demonic possession can also be found in the Bible. This is not to say that you had a demonic experience, of course as the Bible is well known to contradict itself. In either Matthew or Mark, a symptom of demonic possession is also muteness as well as blindness and so this is not a very persuasive argument.
(I don't like the term persuasive argument as I am not attempting to do any of the two but it is the best term I've got at the moment.)

2. You say that God made it very simple for us to follow Him and His rules and that He made it even simpler by saying that we can be saved simply by believing that Jesus is His son. I do not mean to seem rude but I have to be blunt. To say that such an act as believing that Jesus was the true and literal Son of God is easy is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard.

My older brother is a Muslim convert (he and my father are no longer on speaking terms but you might be surprised to know that it is not because of religion) and so I have had the opportunity to learn not just from him but from the Koran and even in Mosque(sp) more than once. Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the literal Son of God but that, like Mohammed after him he was simply a prophet and that he performed miracles through faith in God rather than as God. The way you put it is to imply that all of these Muslims (and this includes most Jews as well) can not be saved and according to the Bible, if you are not saved then you can not get in to Heaven.
I find it hard to imagine that God is going to condemn any man of true faith to an eternity of Hell simply because he chose the wrong religion (or even the wrong denomination for that matter). It is the Bible that claims that Jesus is the Son of God and yet it has been corrupted and tainted by the hand of Man for these past 2,000 years.

I have recently been called faithless by a person of faith because of my views on the Bible. My faithlessness in the Bible is not to be confused for a faithlessness in God. I find it very believable that corrupt Christians who wanted their religion to be the one-world religion (which is ironic as that is one of the signs that is warned of in Revelations along with a one-world government) would edit the Bible to say that Jesus, the representative of Christianity was the literal Son of God birthed by the Virgin Mary.

Can Man not deny that Jesus was born of a virgin as the literal Son of God while still not denying him as a prophet and miracle worker of God?Matthew 17:20 says, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." These are the words of Jesus. This implies that with faith in God, Man can perform miracles. Can this not also imply that Jesus was actually filled with the Holy Spirit and was thus able to perform the great feats that he did?

I honestly feel that this take on Jesus is a far better example of why Man should follow God. For Man to look upon Jesus, son of Joseph who was able to perform such great feats through faith in the Almighty is truly inspiring. But for Man to look upon Jesus who is simply God in flesh is rather disheartening for it is no surprise that Jesus could perform these feats for He is the One God Himself. To say that God descended on to Earth as a human being always seems strange to me.

For God to show humanity that total faith is possible by descending to the Earth as a mortal man seems off to me because that would imply that Jesus (while still being one in the same as God) was only human and that he could make human mistakes. And he did. There were times in the Bible where Jesus became angry and there was even a time when Jesus lost faith. Now to say that Jesus (again, he is supposedly one in the same as God) was human and that he could make all the same mistakes as humans is to imply that he could have also become a corrupt and evil person. This would imply that even God could be corrupted.
Naturally, the omni-benevolent Spirit That Is God can not be corrupted.

I leave you with one last verse.

"But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." -John 10:38

This alone, which is a verse that I find many would-be Christians like to avoid, implies that one need not believe that Jesus truly was God incarnate in order to get in to Heaven but that they only needed to believe that the miracles Jesus performed were truly through God and not the works of another (whether through Satan or trickery) and that you need only accept God in to your heart while recognizing that God was IN Jesus and thus Jesus IN God.

Thanks a lot. :)

-RogueMinstrel

Announcements	Top Rated Roleplays	Newest Roleplays	Asides
Remæus needs your vote! Official Update Regarding the ... I NEED HELP! Who do I go to?	Fate/Heaven and Earth Arcane Armageddon Merc's of Demortris 2 Altaea Saga: Song of the Ancients The Fall of Azazel	Fatal Sex Fallout: Whiteout Red Devil Pride Viper Pack Back in Time: Stonybrook Style

RolePlayGateway™

Announcements

Top Rated Roleplays

Newest Roleplays

Asides

From a Christian Perspective.

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Discuss: Personal Religious Experience ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Re: From a Christian Perspective. ( )

Post a reply

Who is online

Our Sponsors