[Kinitari]

All I said is that I treat the topics equally. I am not dismissing science. And I am agnostic at best. My point was simply that I do not take science that I do not understand at face value. I have seen a dozen "super" scientists explain the death of certain periods on Earth in different ways. Look at the global warming debate. Man made or natural? I have no clue because I personally cannot pluck the current clouds from the sky nor the clouds from 3000 years ago. We have 100 years of good climate change data, which is shit when we are aware that the Earth was completely covered in ice, ash, volcanoes....

Ugh, first of all - climate science is not the strongest of the sciences. Secondly, climate scientists generally claim that there is a natural ebb and flow of climate change the earth goes through, and we as a species have contributed enough to atmosphere of the planet to throw this ebb and flow off kilter - the full amount is unkown and the effects are unkown.

If you are taking this information and saying "See, Science is just like Religion" you need to be punched. Please please please do not equate the Scientific process to Religion/Faith. They are two fundamentally different things, and it it reflects poorly on you for even insinuating they are comparable.

[C4Lukins]

Ugh, first of all - climate science is not the strongest of the sciences. Secondly, climate scientists generally claim that there is a natural ebb and flow of climate change the earth goes through, and we as a species have contributed enough to atmosphere of the planet to throw this ebb and flow off kilter - the full amount is unkown and the effects are unkown. If you are taking this information and saying "See, Science is just like Religion" you need to be punched. Please please please do not equate the Scientific process to Religion/Faith. They are two fundamentally different things, and it it reflects poorly on you for even insinuating they are comparable.

I am comparing the two, not saying they are equal.

[BocoDragon]

Confucius, who is the student of Lao Zi, inherits the concept of Tao

Confucius was not a Taoist at all. If he ever used the word Tao, it was for unrelated reasons. Tao just means "way" or "path" in Chinese. He wasn't following the lineage of Lao Zi's definition. These were completely separate schools of thought, aside from the fact that they would have been syncretized in the centuries since.

Confucianism is a legalistic philosophy concerned with how best to structure family and state. It also contains theological assumptions about ancestor worship. There was nothing in its ideas about society that bear any resemblance to the moral preachings of Abrahamic religion. It was unconcerned with any questions of an intelligent universe. It was unconcerned with any inter-personal relationship with that intelligent universe.

There is nothing about the religion of Confucianism that could be said to be pointing to theism... Unless you make an illogical jump that all moral and legal philosophers are secretly talking about god just because they are discussing questions of right and wrong.

In chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Zi, it states: There was something formless and perfect before the universe was born. It is serene. Empty. Solitary. Unchanging. Infinite. Eternally present. It is the mother of the universe. For lack of a better name, I call it Tao.

This theory of Tao posits some underlying "ground of all being" from which all material things come forth... but just speculating on a theory of "underlying ground" does not imply theism! Indeed, if you are talking about the universe, it's quite inevitable to speculate about some sort of origin from which all things are created. (Certain scientific theories like "field theory" posit some sort of underlying reality too. It's just an inevitable theory that will come up in the observation of existence. )

But that origin is not implied to be an intelligence! Nowhere in that description of Tao do they talk of it as thinking, making decisions, having agency. Nowhere do they state that your spiritual wellbeing depends upon a humanlike relationship with that intelligence. It is not theism!

Even if you wanted to be a rampant spiritualist and talk about "all things being one" or whatever ... that is not similar at all to a definition of "God", unless you also assert that this "one universe thing" is also a living creature, with intelligence, decision making, opinions, attitudes, etc. The whole theory of God is that the universe is like a person, to whom our wellbeing depends on a personal relationship, like with that of a family member. Not all religions posit this!

Indeed if you look at both Taoist and Buddhist language to describe this underyling unity, they use words like "empty" and "formless". This is atheism, not theism! It's talking about a lack of essential universal character... not the existence of a strong minded human-like character with whom we must communicate for our future wellbeing.

Not all religions are secretly talking about god.. plain and simple.. Many of them, particularly those in the east, were uninterested in ideas of a "cosmic personality", if not outright in conflict with those ideas. As the story goes, when Buddha was asked about God, he remained silent. It was not a part of his Buddhist philosophy at all, and he stayed quiet so that believers and non-believers alike could join his regimen. God worship was not only not a part of his philosophy... obsession on a relationship with a deity was actually considered unhelpful in terms of the aims of enlightenment.

(as an aside, if you ever see a Buddhist use the word "God".. it was probably in the last century or two, used in order to sell Buddhism to what they saw as a theistic west. They didn't use this terminology until they started selling self-help books to those raised in Christian societies. It is a subversive marketing technique).

Religions call these underlying laws and principles "God". In essence, God = Nature.

The theory of God is not summed up as "nature". The theory of God is that nature is a facade dependant upon a universal super-intelligence to give it form. This is not a common tenant of all religion, philosophy, or science.

If you don't think that the universe has intelligence, ideas, emotions, attitudes, etc etc, it is not correct to use the word God.

[Mgoblue201]

thanks to texts such as the dead sea scrolls, we do know that the religious scribes took great care when it came to passing down their holy texts from generation to generation. If the religious texts have been able to stand the test of time, we then have a telephone game of where the original source would be a audio tape recording and the message passed down from each subsequent listener would be distorted. Hence why we have so many denominations because of the lack of people going to the original source but instead taking on the word of priests and pastors.

Actually, the near complete preservation of the original texts isn't exactly a service to the Christian religion, because the Bible is a mess that could benefit from some heavy editing. I'll quote Thomas Paine, as I often do on these matters, as saying, "Were I, or any other man, to write in such a disordered manner, no body would read what was written, and every body would suppose that the writer was in a state of insanity." Paine's conclusion is that the book he's referring to - Jeremiah - is "a medley of detached unauthenticated anecdotes, put together by some stupid book-maker, under the name of Jeremiah."

That they were preserved in such authentic condition relative to their original state - though interpolations and changes do inevitably occur - cannot rescue us from the disorderly state of the Bible. If confusion occurs, it's usually because the books were written (rather unprofessionally) in response to ephemeral circumstances at the time, and thus the writers failed to anticipate what would become key doctrinal divisions. Rarely is anything laid out very clearly. It's all fragmented between multiple books and often is only referred to only obliquely. Adding to the confusion is that it's impossible for any simple observer to make sense of the text, because it's a massive tome that flouts easy categorization. It's daunting for anyone to make sense of it without relying upon some other source.

[Narcosis]

Religion actually does have practical benefits: 1) It's a way of connecting with other people like any sort of hobby or interest or creed. 2) It provides answers to certain questions that are by nature impossible to answer empirically, for some people this can be a very powerful motive to be religious. 3) It can be used as a political tool to manipulate large amounts of people. 5) It reduces the complexity of the universe in to something digestible and understandable. Whether these are "good" things is, obviously, very debatable, but don't say that religion has no practical value because that's just not true. If it didn't, we wouldn't have invented it.

It seems you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not talking about religion, I was talking about the use of the word god and whether it makes sense to use that word solely for the purpose of identifying the specific and personal type of god that most of humanity has understood it to mean (Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Odin etc.), or this vague and somewhat pantheistic or mystical or new agey concept that god is a metaphor for our universe, or that all of knowledge and/or existence works together as a collective that stands as god (I'm guessing the last line of Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time would be an example of this usage of the word).

I was simply arguing that given the common usage of language, as understood by the vast majority of society, that the word god is ineffective in vocabulary when invoked outside of the traditional use of identifying a specific theistic entity like Jesus, Allah or Odin. And yes, I get that many different and interesting philosophical points can be made when discussing whether god is an intelligent, specific and personal entity or whether god is a metaphor for existence, but that level of nuance in the usage of the word is lost when you are talking to most of the population and simply causes confusion (just look at the confusion caused by the usage of the word in the instance of Stephen Hawking's book I mentioned earlier, or various quotations of Einstein).

But as for the list of things I just quoted you on, I'm glad you said it's debatable whether those are good things, because I'd argue that in the cases of 2 and "5" (there's no #4?) that trying to explain things we don't know with untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable things with no evidence does nothing but create more roadblocks for those who are trying to increase our understanding of reality. I'd also say that for reason #3, political manipulation, that this has only ever lead to oppression and suffering. The mixing of religion and politics has proven itself over and over to be a toxic thing for every society it's ever been implemented in.

[V_Arnold]

I am going to be fake-bold now, but will say it anyway: the main thing that leads to suffering is lack of acceptance - both for the self, and for others. If people continue being insecure on their own beliefs and insist that they need to change others and only feel comfortable in societies and in countries when everyone else believes what you do, they will only hit brick walls. Very easy to recognize, very hard to accept.

Mixed religions are only an issue as long as people want everyone else to believe the same thing. Mixed political stances are only good for one thing: to keep us separated, because there is always a perceived enemy that way, even if the only difference between them and "us" is that they have different point of views on some matters. So what?

[JGS]

There's plenty of things humans do that aren't "testable", but we accept them. Religion is no different and the religion itself creates no roadblock assuming it's voluntary as Christianity is. If the religion is not voluntary in nature, then it's survival should be tested by the ones being forced to convert.

We do and say things all the time that have nothing to do with data and stats. There's nothing magical about it, but there's nothing scientific about it either. It just is and we accept it perfectly fine.

It's a shame that religion is used for political purposes, but that's hardly the blame of the actual religious tenets. If people became more familiar with their beliefs, they may find it's impossible to base politics on them.

[nib95]

I am going to be fake-bold now, but will say it anyway: the main thing that leads to suffering is lack of acceptance - both for the self, and for others. If people continue being insecure on their own beliefs and insist that they need to change others and only feel comfortable in societies and in countries when everyone else believes what you do, they will only hit brick walls. Very easy to recognize, very hard to accept. Mixed religions are only an issue as long as people want everyone else to believe the same thing. Mixed political stances are only good for one thing: to keep us separated, because there is always a perceived enemy that way, even if the only difference between them and "us" is that they have different point of views on some matters. So what?

There's plenty of things humans do that aren't "testable", but we accept them. Religion is no different and the religion itself creates no roadblock assuming it's voluntary as Christianity is. If the religion is not voluntary in nature, then it's survival should be tested by the ones being forced to convert. We do and say things all the time that have nothing to do with data and stats. There's nothing magical about it, but there's nothing scientific about it either. It just is and we accept it perfectly fine. It's a shame that religion is used for political purposes, but that's hardly the blame of the actual religious tenets. If people became more familiar with their beliefs, they may find it's impossible to base politics on them.

Both great posts imo. Pretty nice coming in to this thread and reading the above.

[mannerbot]

There's plenty of things humans do that aren't "testable", but we accept them. Religion is no different and the religion itself creates no roadblock assuming it's voluntary as Christianity is. If the religion is not voluntary in nature, then it's survival should be tested by the ones being forced to convert. We do and say things all the time that have nothing to do with data and stats. There's nothing magical about it, but there's nothing scientific about it either. It just is and we accept it perfectly fine. It's a shame that religion is used for political purposes, but that's hardly the blame of the actual religious tenets. If people became more familiar with their beliefs, they may find it's impossible to base politics on them.

Do you believe that (most) children choose the religions that they are raised up in?

[chas]

Confucius was not a Taoist at all. If he ever used the word Tao, it was for unrelated reasons. Tao just means "way" or "path" in Chinese. He wasn't following the lineage of Lao Zi's definition. These were completely separate schools of thought, aside from the fact that they would have been syncretized in the centuries since.

Tao in its current vernacular usage in Chinese means "way" or "path" yes; however, the word "Tao" encompasses much more than just those two meanings. The Tao is integrated into the culture and society of East Asian countries; more so in Chinese countries. It is not just a religious concept. Without being Chinese or having a deep intimate knowledge and understanding of the culture and the various texts in Chinese, it is not easy to understand "Tao".

In Japan there is "kendo" (the Tao of the Sword), "chado" (The Tao of Tea), etc. Of course, the surface meaning means "way" but if you truly study kendo and chado (Japanese Tea Ceremony), you will come to fully understand why the word "Tao" is in its name. If you look at the Chinese versions of the Bible, you will see this:

"In the beginning was the Tao, the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God. The Tao was with God in the beginning." (John 1:1)

The Chinese translators used the word Tao because in Chinese it is the closest equivalent to the "Word" or "God" of the Bible. Mencius, who was a disciple of Confucius' grandson and the main interpreter of the Confucian school of thought, said: "When the entire world is drowning, only Tao can save it."

There are too many examples to list. The "Tao" is much more than just "way" or "path". It is not something that can be understood without diving in deep. The main text associated with Confucius is "The Analects of Confucius". In that text, Confucius refers to the Tao at least 30 times. The Tao that Confucius was referring to is the same Tao of Lao Zi. If you study it deeply, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the Tao of both Confucius and Lao Zi is different.

Confucianism is a legalistic philosophy concerned with how best to structure family and state. It also contains theological assumptions about ancestor worship. There was nothing in its ideas about society that bear any resemblance to the moral preachings of Abrahamic religion. It was unconcerned with any questions of an intelligent universe. It was unconcerned with any inter-personal relationship with that intelligent universe. There is nothing about the religion of Confucianism that could be said to be pointing to theism... Unless you make an illogical jump that all moral and legal philosophers are secretly talking about god just because they are discussing questions of right and wrong.

Yes. Structure and order in family and state was what was needed at that time, so Confucius emphasized on the Five Virtues (or Constants) and the Four Virtues (or Words). The word used for "Confucian" in Chinese is "Ru", as in "Ru school of thought", "teachings of Ru". The character for "Ru" is composed of two parts: 1) human 2) needs. "Ru" means "the needs of humans".

Confucius mainly wanted to harmonize the interpersonal relationships between humans. In order to harmonize, these relationships must all adhere to the Tao. Each Saint sent by God came with different purposes and tasks. It is like prescribing medicine to cure a particular disease. If this medicine isn't needed, there is no need to prescribe such a medicine.

Confucius speaks of God many times in the Analects. The name Confucius used is "Tien" (Heaven), which was the name used for "Shang Di" (Lord Most High a.k.a. God) at the time. In current Chinese language, "Tien" is used in daily words and idioms and proverbs. God is as part as the culture and society of the East as it is in the West. The names are just different. If you talk to someone about "Shang Di" in China or Taiwan they will know you are referring to God. You can Wikipedia "Shang Di" or "Tien" (jump to the Confucius section) and you will see that it is just like the God in the Bible, with it's divine nature, "decision making", etc. Bible translators often use "Shang Di" to translate God, as it is the Chinese equivalent.

This theory of Tao posits some underlying "ground of all being" from which all material things come forth... but just speculating on a theory of "underlying ground" does not imply theism! Indeed, if you are talking about the universe, it's quite inevitable to speculate about some sort of origin from which all things are created. (Certain scientific theories like "field theory" posit some sort of underlying reality too. It's just an inevitable theory that will come up in the observation of existence. ) But that origin is not implied to be an intelligence! Nowhere in that description of Tao do they talk of it as thinking, making decisions, having agency. Nowhere do they state that your spiritual wellbeing depends upon a humanlike relationship with that intelligence. It is not theism! Even if you wanted to be a rampant spiritualist and talk about "all things being one" or whatever ... that is not similar at all to a definition of "God", unless you also assert that this "one universe thing" is also a living creature, with intelligence, decision making, opinions, attitudes, etc. The whole theory of God is that the universe is like a person, to whom our wellbeing depends on a personal relationship, like with that of a family member. Not all religions posit this!

That was just one part of a particular chapter. It is not possible for me to explain the Tao Te Ching in its entirety. Lao Zi emphasized the concept of "Oneness", that we must return to be "one with the Tao", so to speak. The Tao Te Ching is about the divine nature of God. Just as Jesus said, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) In order to be perfect like God we must know the divine nature of God and restore that divine nature within us.

To know about God in China, you will have to look at the history of China. In Ancient China there is this thing called "Tien Ming", which can be translated as "The Mandate of Heaven" or "The Heavenly Decree". Just like in the Old Testament of the Bible, where God would choose a "suitable king/ruler" to govern His people, the "Tien Ming" is the Authority or Mandate or Decree given by God to the Emperor to govern His people. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia on "Mandate of Heaven":

The Mandate of Heaven is based on four leading ideas: The right to rule China is granted by Heaven. There can be only one legitimate ruler of China. The right to rule is based on the virtue of the ruler and his good performance as a steward for Heaven. The right to rule may be passed down from father to son, but only on the conditions established above. Once the Mandate is lost, the will of Heaven towards a successor will only be known by the working out of the imponderable force of events in human history.

The first person who God bestowed the Mandate of Heaven to was Emperor Fu Xi. God can revoke the Mandate whenever he sees that the current Emperor is no longer aligned with God. Of course, after the "Three Sovereigners and Five Emperors", God no longer gave rulers the Mandate. The concept of a Sovereign God already existed in China 5000 years ago.

In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Zi speaks of the "Tao masters of antiquity" or the "Tao of the ancients", is referring to the above. If you truly dig deep into the various religious texts, they all speak about God in various ways. When we look at any religious text, we must consider the time, place, context, history, etc. just as we do for the Bible. If we read the Bible at face value, it will make no sense, but if we look into the history and context of it, it makes sense. I can find more examples and references if you wish. There are too many to list.

I will stop here for now. I do not wish to make the post too long.

There is a saying, "Acceptance comes before understanding." V_Arnold mentioned it above. If someone says you have a certain bad habit, but you do not accept what that person says is true, you will not be able to see it and change it. Because your mind has already rejected the very idea of it, and so anything anyone says will be futile.

[chas]

I would like to introduce you to the plant S. pumilum, it uses deception to be pollinated and reproduce. It produces chemicals that smell like rotting flesh to attract flies to the flower. I bring it up, because I think it is important to notice that things that simply seem like truth are all that are needed for the continued propagation of a flower - I have little doubt they would not at least be a bit effective in the propagation of a meme. Haly: For starters, I will refer you to 16th and 17th century Europe. Edit: chas - Fun fact: Buddhism often embraces the deviating from the original message - it can view itself as an ever evolving system of thought and practice.

Yes, it is possible to deceive or be deceived. However, in each and everyone of us there exists our "original nature". Some may call it the "spirit of God", or "Buddha nature", or "Christhood". Whatever it may be called, there exists a nature within us that is unchanging and undying. If we can realize our original nature, it is not possible to be deceived. Because our original nature is Truth; it is all-knowing, just as God had created in his image and likeness.

This original nature is like the sun: It does not shine its light or give its warmth only to whom it wishes to give, but it gives to all who needs it, good or bad. This is just like God's unconditional love. However, like the sun, it can be covered up by clouds that prevent the sun's light from shining and its warmth from spreading. These clouds are our desires, hatred, ignorance, bad habits, etc. So we often say, "our judgments are clouded." We must clear these clouds in order for us to see the sun and for it to shine its light and give its warmth. This is what our original nature, our true spirit is like.

If that is Buddhism in its current form, then it is not what Buddha had intended. Buddha is the embodiment of our original nature. To deviate from the words of Buddha is to deviate from our original nature. Just as if you deviate from Jesus Christ you deviate from God.

Buddha spoke of what will happen to his Dharma after five five-hundred years:

1.The Former Day of the Law
A.The first five hundred years—the age of enlightenment
B.The second five hundred years—the age of meditation

2.The Middle Day of the Law
A.The third five hundred years—the age of reading, reciting, and listening
B.The fourth five hundred years—the age of building temples and stupas

3.The Latter Day of the Law
A.The fifth five hundred years—the age of conflict

Buddha was alive 2500 years ago. We are already in the "Latter Day of the Law" where there are conflicts and Buddha's Dharma no longer has any effect or "truth" in it.

[ivedoneyourmom]

I have yet to be convinced that big-t Truth exists.

I assume you mean what Sid intended. I'm going to have to defer to Boco on this, he's far more brushed up on the topic than myself, however I imagine Sid would not be opposed to Buddhism as the ever adapting system searching for truths, than as you say, Buddhism the purveyor of Truth.

[chas]

I have yet to be convinced that big-t Truth exists.

You will come to know Truth one day. We are like children still growing and maturing. As we grow and mature we slowly become just like our father in heaven. When the Fifth Patriarch Hong Ren of Chan (Zen) Bhuddism passed on the hidden Dharma to the Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng, Hui Neng said:

How amazing that the self nature is originally pure! How amazing that the self nature is unborn and undying! How amazing that the self nature is inherently complete! How amazing that the self nature neither moves nor stays! How amazing that all dharmas come from this self nature!

That is what our original nature is like. This passing of the Dharma was the same as when Buddha passed it to Mahakasyapa. Buddha said:

I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, the subtle dharma gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.

Although the bold should be "the true form that is formless" or "formless true form".

I assume you mean what Sid intended. I'm going to have to defer to Boco on this, he's far more brushed up on the topic than myself, however I imagine Sid would not be opposed to Buddhism as the ever adapting system searching for truths, than as you say, Buddhism the purveyor of Truth.

Who is Sid? I tried searching for the user Sid in this topic but it says no such match. Maybe I'm not using the search tool correctly.

It is not wrong to say it is an ever adapting system, as you say. It is like the law of the conservation of mass-energy. Energy is neither created or destroyed but it can change form into mass and matter and mass and matter can change back to energy. It is constant. At the base of it all is energy. Truth is the same. It is the underlying principle that is eternal and unchanging but can manifest in any form. In whatever form it takes it must adhere to the Truth.

[ivedoneyourmom]

Sid=Siddhartha Gautama, there have been a number of Buddha.

[chas]

Sid=Siddhartha Gautama, there have been a number of Buddha.

Oh I see. When I say Buddha, he is who I was referring to. Since he is like the "founder" of Buddhism, so I assumed when I referred to Buddha it is widely known to refer to him. I apologize for the confusion.

Just a slight edit to the above post of mine: When I said that Buddha did not intend for Buddhism to be like this, I was referring to the "deviating from the original message part" because all truths must align with Truth.

Buddha was teaching the One Vehicle that is the source, origin, base, Truth of the Three Vehicles, which are the three levels of Spiritual understanding of the dharma. All three vehicles are derived from this One Vehicle. From this One Vehicle came all truths and forms.

[Matthew Gallant]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/12/us/kan...ash/index.html

Plane en route to Christian youth conference crashes in Kansas, 4 die Texas-based Teen Mania Ministries said the eight-seat plane, manufactured in 1991, was headed for the Acquire the Fire conference in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The aircraft caught fire after the crash.

God is a douchebag!

[Mgoblue201]

He loved them so much that he wanted to bring them home early.

[Amir0x]

it was Satan doing it

don't you know anything

in other news, I don't remember if I said this already, but this crazy lady at work told me the reason my mom and sister are so sick is because I am an atheist. I turned around and walked away and didn't immediately break her jaw, but only just

[Mzo]

I am comparing the two, not saying they are equal.

Even inviting the comparison is a bit silly.

One is a scaffold of theories that is often torn down and rebuilt as we learn more about the universe and its processes.

The other is a man-made set of rigid beliefs that have been handed down for centuries as truth, immutable and absolute.

What do they have in common, aside from originating from man?

[Pseudo_Sam]

it was Satan doing it don't you know anything in other news, I don't remember if I said this already, but this crazy lady at work told me the reason my mom and sister are so sick is because I am an atheist. I turned around and walked away and didn't immediately break her jaw, but only just

Absurd. Well done showing restraint though, I don't know how well I would fare in a similar situation.

[Pollux]

it was Satan doing it don't you know anything in other news, I don't remember if I said this already, but this crazy lady at work told me the reason my mom and sister are so sick is because I am an atheist. I turned around and walked away and didn't immediately break her jaw, but only just

Good use of restraint.

[OttomanScribe]

Absurd. Well done showing restraint though, I don't know how well I would fare in a similar situation.

Yeah, good job not punching a woman in the face.

[JGS]

it was Satan doing it don't you know anything in other news, I don't remember if I said this already, but this crazy lady at work told me the reason my mom and sister are so sick is because I am an atheist. I turned around and walked away and didn't immediately break her jaw, but only just

This line of reasoning is as stupid as saying God is bad for causing a plane crash. Straight out of Westboro...

(Btw, hope Mom is doing as OK as can be expected.)

[Amir0x]

This line of reasoning is as stupid as saying God is bad for causing a plane crash. Straight out of Westboro... (Btw, hope Mom is doing as OK as can be expected.)

I know. The lady is crazy in general. Once she handed me a pamphlet from her church which described in agonizing detail, as if from a vacation itinerary, what my first seven days in Hell would be like.

It was like "ON Day 1, you'll feel horrified as you realize you'll never see your family again. All-consuming darkness envelops you, and you think for the first time you never really knew what dark was until then. All you hear from a distance is screams, neverending. Suddenly from below a light; but not one of grace. Fire begins to lick at your feet, peeling away at the skin until you're yelling in agony. Your mouth is parched, and you painfully wail for a drink of water, but no one responds. As the day ends, it already feels like an eternity, and you've only just begun..."

By Day 7, it was just like what the hell, dude? By Day 7 I was apparently using my little bits of remaining sane thought to wish my family doesn't go to hell with me, so I can take comfort that only I'd be eternally tortured and not them.

[OttomanScribe]

I know. The lady is crazy in general. Once she handed me a pamphlet from her church which described in agonizing detail, as if from a vacation itinerary, what my first seven days in Hell would be like. It was like "ON Day 1, you'll feel horrified as you realize you'll never see your family again. All-consuming darkness envelops you, and you think for the first time you never really knew what dark was until then. All you hear from a distance is screams, neverending. Suddenly from below a light; but not one of grace. Fire begins to lick at your feet, peeling away at the skin until you're yelling in agony. Your mouth is parched, and you painfully wail for a drink of water, but no one responds. As the day ends, it already feels like an eternity, and you've only just begun..." By Day 7, it was just like what the hell, dude? By Day 7 I was apparently using my little bits of remaining sane thought to wish my family doesn't go to hell with me, so I can take comfort that only I'd be eternally tortured and not them.

Got pics? What did the pamphlet look like?

[Amir0x]

Got pics? What did the pamphlet look like?

Gosh it was months ago. I may still have it in a draw at my desk at work, I'll have to take a look on Monday.

What it looked like was a vacation itinerary, only there was fire all over the pamphlet. The cover was like "WELCOME TO THE PITS OF HELL" in flowery, inviting lettering, and then a biblical quote under it. Inside there was an introduction paragraph like "people often wonder what it'd be like to go to hell. If you don't accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, you have an eternity to look forward to inside Satan's home, so it's probably a good idea to know what your trip is going to look like..."

Then there is seven follow up paragraphs, each following a single day in hell. By the end of Day 7, they follow it up with a conclusion paragraph about how my future doesn't HAVE to look like this if I just take Jesus into my heart. Then there was contact information and stuff, don't remember the specifics of it

[Kinitari]

Yeah, good job not punching a woman in the face.

I'm no sexist, I've never punched someone in the face before or anything, but man or woman doesn't matter. The line they'd need to cross is the same.

[V_Arnold]

I would have asked her very strongly this: "How dare you to assume that MY actions and believes actually have an effect on believers? How can you really believe that my will or lack of faith is stronger than their own when it comes to their own lifes?"

...Really, really rude.

By the way, Amir0x, how is your mother doing? I have read that topic about her being in very dire situation about a year ago. Has the situation been improving, or stagnating, or..?

[Amir0x]

I would have asked her very strongly this: "How dare you to assume that MY actions and believes actually have an effect on believers? How can you really believe that my will or lack of faith is stronger than their own when it comes to their own lifes?" ...Really, really rude.

Later after I cooled down I briefly went up to her and said something like "you know, my mom and sister have been extremely religious for as long as I've been alive. They go to congregation three times a week when they're healthy enough to, pray before every meal and read the scriptures daily. My mom and dad have personal Bible study with their grandkids every week and they have always been extremely devout. If God isn't intelligent enough or powerful enough to not allow for collateral damage on people who believe in him over the actions of those who don't, what does that say about your God?"

By the way, Amir0x, how is your mother doing? I have read that topic about her being in very dire situation about a year ago. Has the situation been improving, or stagnating, or..?

Click to read. New topic on the situation. Not particularly good, honestly. She's a fighter though and we're fighting for her too, so hopefully it works out.

[Buckethead]

My minister (and friend) accused my family of having problems due to not having God in their life.

At that point I pretty much decided I'd never walk into another church in my lifetime.

So I feel ya there Amir0x.

If you say fucked up shit to me, I'll do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek, but you'll never have a place in my life again.

[Raist]

On the topic of morality and god, just noticed that youtubist dprjones has recently started a new series of videos "God is not good".

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Not sure how many videos he's planning to make on that topic, but at least another one.

Warning: If you're convinced that the christian god is morally perfect and are a big WLC fan, this might offend you.

[Buckethead]

I saw Michael Dowd speak this week.

In his speech he built a pretty reasonable case for Christian morality through the lense of the human brain and evolutionary science.

I haven't delved deeply into his beliefs or read his book yet but I came away with a great respect for him and his approach.

[Lothar]

On the topic of morality and god, just noticed that youtubist dprjones has recently started a new series of videos "God is not good". Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Not sure how many videos he's planning to make on that topic, but at least another one. Warning: If you're convinced that the christian god is morally perfect and are a big WLC fan, this might offend you.

I listened to about 5 minutes of part 1. I don't know, it's taking awhile for him to make a point. I don't particularly care if Craig is using the same speech twice or namedropping people.

I much prefer this girl's videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt5J3EEjASs&feature=plcp Here she is completely destroying the theistic free will and God is Good argument.

[OttomanScribe]

Gosh it was months ago. I may still have it in a draw at my desk at work, I'll have to take a look on Monday.

Hardcore. Let me know if you find it.

[Amir0x]

Hardcore. Let me know if you find it.

Ha, I typed "First Seven Days in Hell" in google and it corrected me to say "First Six Days in Hell", and then the first link was a verbatim word-for-word copy of the pamphlet I got. Guess I know where the pamphlet was horribly dragged from now. Like they're going to scare me into believing this shit, pfft.

Here are the contents:

___________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________


What Is Hell Like?

Most vacations include an itinerary. You have an idea what you will see and do before you arrive at your destination. The Bible has enough information to project an itinerary for those whose destination is hell. Let's look at the first 6 days.

DAY 1

The trip originates at the gate of death. Since departures are made daily, you are called upon to begin your trip on short notice. Since the journey is only one way, there is no need to concern yourself with return plans. Your initial point of departure may prove more than a little frightening, as you suddenly realize the finality of your destination. The trip itself will leave you with little time to contemplate what awaits. As you pass through the doorway of death, you will notice almost immediately that your direction is taking you away from the light toward what appears to be complete and utter darkness. With each passing moment the darkness becomes more intense. At first the absence of light is only annoying, but you feel it becoming more ominous and threatening.

The intensity of the darkness is only matched by the absence of any joyful sounds-no music, no laughter, no sounds of merriment. As you move farther, faint sounds of moaning and wailing become detectable. They seem to be coming through the darkness from every direction. You become aware of a faint light. it flickers like a flame, yet thick clouds of black smoke dance all around it, keeping the flame from casting off any real hope of light.

Suddenly you find yourself obsessed to know what day and hour it is. Already it feels like you've been here for an eternity ... and it's only Day 1.

DAY 2

The continuing darkness is stifling. It's as if something is lurking in the veil of night that surrounds you. You yell, you threaten, you even plead, but to no avail. Whatever it is just stays there, producing fear like you've never known before. As your eyes struggle to adjust to the dark, you become aware of a new sensation. The heat. It's right at the edge of unbearable. Hot, searing, intolerable heat. Your body craves water. You'd give anything for a drink, and you try unsuccessfully to push that desire out of your mind.

The air is thick, choking, miserable ... and it's just Day 2.

DAY 3

At least you think it's Day 3. It seems like it has already been forever. You've not been able to sleep. You still can't believe you're here. Where are the friends you thought you would see? The knowledge that they would be here too had brought you some comfort in your lifetime. Where is the fun you thought you would have? It isn't at all like what you were led to believe. You stumble upon a group of others. You pour out a litany of questions. As they open their mouths, no words come out ... only the sounds of weeping and wailing. Some in the group don't even try to respond. They gnash their teeth, as if in some invisible pain.

You wonder when this nightmare will end. You wonder why somebody can't make it stop ... and it's only Day 3.

DAY 4

How you wish you could send a message to those you left behind. You'd warn them about this place. You'd tell them what it's really like, so they'd never come. The thought of your loved ones coming to a place like this is unbearable. You can't help but think back upon that day when you made your decision to come here. You understood that your rejection of Jesus meant that you would spend eternity in hell but it didn't seem real or important then.

Looking back, you think how foolish you were to reject God's offer of salvation. You wish you could choose again.

You find yourself hoping that your loved ones will choose differently, even though you realize such a choice means you'll never see them again ... never touch them ... never speak to them. What a horrible realization ... and it's only Day 4.

DAY 5

You've become acutely aware of the absence of any good in this place. There's no love, for God is love. There's no joy or peace or goodness, because all of these come from God too. There's nothing sacred, nothing holy, nothing of God anywhere to be found. You're amazed at how evil evil can be. For the first time since your arrival, you begin to sense the great gulf that is fixed between where you are and where God is. The span is beyond your comprehension as you try to realize the degree of distance that will separate you from God and those who chose to serve Him. God is on the other side of that gulf. Loved ones in Christ are on the other side of that gulf.

What a lonely realization ... and it's only Day 5.

DAY 6

Through the darkness you saw a new face today. A new arrival. He stopped to speak with you. You could see the terror in his eyes. He asked questions that you had been asking only days before. You opened your mouth to reply, but all that would come out was the sound of weeping and wailing. You've just spent your first 6 days in hell. Unfortunately, an unholy, unhappy eternity stretches out before you ... and all because you rejected Jesus. if only...

But wait. The fact you're reading this says you still have a chance. In His mercy, God is giving you an opportunity right now to change your eternal itinerary. "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).

Oh, friend, do it now ... before it's too late.

Learn How...

Learn More About Jesus

(This scenario is based upon verses found in Revelation 20:14,15; Luke 16:20-31; Mark 9:43; Matthew 22:11-13.)

This article is used by permission. D.E. Rabineau is pastor of Evangel Chapel (Assemblies of God) in Bridgewater, New Jersey. This article originally appeared in the PENTECOSTAL EVANGEL, MAY 4, 1997.[/Quote]

[OttomanScribe]

Ha, I typed "First Seven Days in Hell" in google and it corrected me to say "First Six Days in Hell", and then the first link was a verbatim word-for-word copy of the pamphlet I got. Guess I know where the pamphlet was horribly dragged from now. Like they're going to scare me into believing this shit, pfft.

Wow. That is soooo hardcore. Also pretty much a Christian statement of disbelief:


'You've become acutely aware of the absence of any good in this place. There's no love, for God is love. There's no joy or peace or goodness, because all of these come from God too. There's nothing sacred, nothing holy, nothing of God anywhere to be found.'

Reminds me of those 'hell houses'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcJCOou6dZk

[Narcosis]

The area I live in is pretty religious, though not as hardcore as the southern "Bible Belt" states so we don't get hellhouses around here. And most of the pamphlets I see left in places aren't of the describing hell with over-zealous imagination and enthusiasm, but more like that Joel Osteen style prosperity and happiness can be yours sort of thing.

[Amir0x]

Wow. That is soooo hardcore. Also pretty much a Christian statement of disbelief: 'You've become acutely aware of the absence of any good in this place. There's no love, for God is love. There's no joy or peace or goodness, because all of these come from God too. There's nothing sacred, nothing holy, nothing of God anywhere to be found.' Reminds me of those 'hell houses'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcJCOou6dZk

Yeah i heard of those hell houses before, absolutely insane a parent would actively allow their kid to go to one of those. Sick.

But yeah, the pamphlet blew my mind when I read it. I was pretty diplomatic about it when she gave that to me, I just kept reading passages to her periodically throughout the day whilst mocking the contents really loudly. She got annoyed at that I think.

The area I live in is pretty religious, though not as hardcore as the southern "Bible Belt" states so we don't get hellhouses around here. And most of the pamphlets I see left in places aren't of the describing hell with over-zealous imagination and enthusiasm, but more like that Joel Osteen style prosperity and happiness can be yours sort of thing.

Shit I live in pennsylvania. This chick is just crazy.

[Raist]

Here are the contents: What Is Hell Like?

So a warm, dark and silent place? Doesn't sound too bad. Who's that supposed to scare? Claustrophobics?

[soul creator]

Thought this was an interesting story: Norway abolishes state-sponsored Church of Norway

it's easy to forget that a lot of places in Europe have state-sponsored churches, even if the vast majority of the population is nonreligious, heh.

[archnemesis]

That's good news. The state shouldn't promote one religion over all the others. In other Scandinavian religious news today, Mosques' advice: 'don't report abusive husbands'. I found it really surprising that 9 out of 10 Swedish mosques support polygamy.

[BruiserBear]

The area I live in is pretty religious, though not as hardcore as the southern "Bible Belt" states so we don't get hellhouses around here. And most of the pamphlets I see left in places aren't of the describing hell with over-zealous imagination and enthusiasm, but more like that Joel Osteen style prosperity and happiness can be yours sort of thing.

I think the judgmental style of religion is quickly losing a lot of people in the west. The Joel Osteen flavor or "happy go lucky god" is the future of Christianity for the near future.

[JGS]

I think the judgmental style of religion is quickly losing a lot of people in the west. The Joel Osteen flavor or "happy go lucky god" is the future of Christianity for the near future.

That style has been the norm for decades. It's just not what's reported because it's boring and harmless.

[Buckethead]

I think the judgmental style of religion is quickly losing a lot of people in the west. The Joel Osteen flavor or "happy go lucky god" is the future of Christianity for the near future.

Wat?

Osteen and his ilk are complete crooks and advocate more false promises than already present in religion.

People may disagree but I think if Christianity has a future it's more akin to the Rob Bell type of Christianity that focuses exclusively on love, positive thinking, and helping others through encouraging relationships. Less on hell, antiquated views on morality, and top-down structure.

[AAequal]

Seems like interesting document http://www.therevisionariesmovie.com/trailer.html

In Austin, Texas, fifteen people influence what is taught to the next generation of American children. Once every decade, the highly politicized Texas State Board of Education rewrites the teaching and textbook standards for its nearly 5 million schoolchildren. And when it comes to textbooks, what happens in Texas affects the nation as a whole. Don McLeroy, a dentist, Sunday school teacher, and avowed young-earth creationist, leads the Religious Right charge. After briefly serving on his local school board, McLeroy was elected to the Texas State Board of Education and later appointed chairman. During his time on the board, McLeroy has overseen the adoption of new science and history curriculum standards, drawing national attention and placing Texas on the front line of the so-called "culture wars." In his last term, McLeroy, aided by Cynthia Dunbar, an attorney from Houston and professor of Law at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, finds himself not only fighting to change what Americans are taught, but also fighting to retain his seat on the board. Challenged by Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, and Ron Wetherington, an anthropology professor from Southern Methodist University in Texas, McLeroy faces his toughest term yet. THE REVISIONARIES follows the rise and fall of some of the most controversial figures in American education through some of their most tumultuous intellectual battles.

[CatPee]

Seems like interesting document http://www.therevisionariesmovie.com/trailer.html

Check out the episode of The Colbert Report with Don McLeroy.

[thoughthorizon]

Hence why we have so many denominations because of the lack of people going to the original source but instead taking on the word of priests and pastors.

Even when the source is self contradictory, factually wrong in many places, and completely prone to interpretation based on extant culture? Even if the accuracy of transmission through time is correct, what this gives you is a well preserved set of fallacies!

In short, no, that's not why we have so many denominations - we have denominations because there is no such thing as (for example) a "True Christian" - religious texts can be interpreted in so many ways that no two groups of people will have the same understanding of it.

In fact it could be said that it was by only allowing one particular group of society to interpret these texts that Christianity maintained any kind of singular theology in the post Roman era.

[Kung Fu Grip]

"Well sometimes questions don't need answers"

Is what a random scene from a movie said out of nowhere when me and brother were talking about the universe and where everything comes from. "Why are there so many un answered questions?" My brother had said.

It scared the shit out of us.

[Tawpgun]

Good video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RXmk...ature=youtu.be

Most people have used these same arguements and logic. Nice to see it in a well done video.

[F#A#Oo]

Good video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RXmk...ature=youtu.be Most people have used these same arguements and logic. Nice to see it in a well done video.

I feel left out...I went from catholicism>agnosticism/weak-atheism>Islam...

That video makes me wanna watch a documentry...and makes me miss my period of world travel. :(